Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

Oral Answers to Questions — BANKRUPTCY AND COMPANIES ACTS (PROSECUTIONS).

Mr. POTTER: 1.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the number of prosecutions made by his Department during the past three years to the most convenient date against debtors for failure to keep proper books of account and for any other misdemeanours arising out of the Bankruptcy Acts; and with what result?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin): During the three years ending 31st October, 1932, there were 118 prosecutions for misdemeanours under the Bankruptcy Acts, and these prosecutions resulted in 113 convictions and five acquittals.

Mr. POTTER: 2.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the number of prosecutions made by his Department or by the Public Prosecutor during the past three years to the most convenient date against directors and other officials for misfeasance and other offences arising out of the affairs of companies compulsorily wound up under the Companies Acts; and what was the result?

Dr. BURGIN: During the three years ending 31st October, 1932, the number of cases referred by the Board of Trade to the Director of Public Prosecutions in which proceedings were instituted against directors and other officials of companies as a result of investigations by official receivers in the compulsory winding up of companies was nine against 15 persons. Convictions were secured against 11 persons, warrants were issued against two but could not be executed, one person was discharged and one now stands remanded. I am unable to give figures
relating to the number of cases in which proceedings were instituted as a result of other investigations.

Sir ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: Are we to understand that the Board of Trade refer these questions to the Public Prosecutor, or do they refer them to the court and the court to the Public Prosecutor?

Dr. BURGIN: The Board of Trade is giving the information asked for by an hon. Member as to the number of prosecutions.

Sir A. M. SAMUEL: But is the hon. Gentleman not aware that he has just stated that the Board of Trade refer them to the Public Prosecutor? Is that a fact?

Dr. BURGIN: The fact appears from the answer that these cases were referred by the Board of Trade to the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

DENMARK.

Captain DOWER: 3.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what representations have been made by His Majesty's Government to Denmark regarding the duties recently imposed by Denmark on certain classes of British goods, including hats, ordered at the exhibition at Copenhagen; and can he inform the House of the result of such representations?

Dr. BURGIN: Representations have been made to the Danish Government regarding the adverse effect which the recent increase in the Danish tariff has had on orders taken at the Anglo-Danish Exhibition. Exceptions from the increased duties have been allowed in respect of consignments of certain classes of goods ordered before the 10th October for delivery before the end of the year. I understand that any modification of the Danish law is impossible at the moment, since the Danish Legislature is not now sitting; but I have reason to hope that, when it re-assembles, means will be found to extend the exceptions so as to cover all classes of goods ordered at the Exhibition.

Colonel GOODMAN: 20.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the revised
Danish tariff on imports of British gloves; if his Department have calculated whether the new tariff will be of greater adverse effect than the previous tariff; and whether any steps have been taken by his Department to draw the attention of the Danish Government to the effect of the new tariff on the British glove industry?

Dr. BURGIN: The new Danish tariff increases the import duty on leather gloves. This duty with other Danish Customs duties will be reviewed in the course of the forthcoming negotiations with Denmark. Meantime representations as to the adverse effect of the increased duties on orders taken at the recent Anglo-Danish Exhibition have been made to the Danish Government.

Colonel GOODMAN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Great Britain is Denmark's best customer, and does he consider that this latest move is consistent with the alleged desire of the people of Denmark to do more business with their best customers?

Dr. BURGIN: I think the increases have been imposed at an unfortunate time.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House whether the Danish Government, by chance, have made representations to our own Government protesting against the tariffs imposed against Danish goods coming into this country?

Dr. BURGIN: Certainly not without notice.

Mr. GRANVILLE GIBSON (for Mr. HANNON): 9.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the amount of British manufactured goods exported to Denmark during the 10 months ended 31st October, 1932, and the amount of such goods retained for consumption in Demark?

Dr. BURGIN: Particulars of the exports of manufactured goods from the United Kingdom to individual countries, as distinguished from those of other classes of goods, are compiled in respect of calendar years only. No information is available regarding the amount of the exports from the United Kingdom to Denmark which is retained for consumption in that country.

FINLAND.

Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKE: 4.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the value of exports and imports between this country and Finland for the 12 months ended 31st October, and how it compares witch the previous corresponding year?

Dr. BURGIN: As the answer involves a table of figures, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the table:

The aggregate value of the import and export trade in merchandise with individual countries is compiled for calendar years and quarterly periods only. The following table shows the total declared value of merchandise imported into and exported from the United Kingdom and registered during the 12 months ended the 30th September, 1931 and 1932, respectively, as consigned from and to Finland.

—
Twelve months ended 30th September.



1931.
1932.



£
£


Imports of merchandise consigned from Finland
11,372,820
12,165,985


Exports of merchandise consigned to Finland:




Produce and manufactures of the United Kingdom.
1,789,166
2,023,722


Imported merchandise.
208,415
228,654

IMPORT DUTIES.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: 5.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he can make a statement showing the course of prices in manufactured articles subject to import duties, comparing the present level of prices with the prices that prevailed before the imposition of duties and making allowance for the depreciation in British currency owing to our going off the Gold Standard?

Dr. BURGIN: Sufficiently comprehensive information is not available to enable the precise comparison for which the hon. Member asks, but there is published quarterly in the Board of Trade Journal an estimate of the average values
of the imports of articles classed as wholly or mainly manufactured, of which the greater proportion is now subject to import duties. I am sending the hon. Member a copy of the most recent article on the subject.

RETAIL PRICES.

Captain FULLER: 10.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether in view of the likelihood of a rise in the wholesale price of certain commodities in the near future, he will consider the desirability of appointing a thorough inquiry into all costs and profits of retailing, in order to ensure the protection of the consumer?

Dr. BURGIN: An investigation of so comprehensive a character would be a long and difficult undertaking. In my opinion such inquiries can most usefully be made in relation to particular trades as and when occasion arises. I would remind my hon. and gallant Friend that the Food Council has investigated bread, meat, milk and tea prices in recent years.

MOST-FAVOURED-NATION CLAUSE.

Mr. MANDER: 12.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Government are prepared to consider abandoning the principle of the most-favoured-nation Clause in the existing negotiations for the reduction of tariff barriers?

Dr. BURGIN: I cannot anticipate the course of our commercial negotiations with foreign countries, but provided satisfactory arrangements can be reached there is no present intention of abandoning our present most-favoured-nation rights.

Mr. MANDER: Is not the hon. Member aware that that limits to an enormous extent our power to negotiate bilateral treaties, and will he not reconsider it?

Dr. BURGIN: The hon. Member has perhaps not appreciated the answer. There is no present intention of abandoning this country's most-favoured-nation right.

Mr. MANDER: Do I understand from that reply that in the course of the negotiations the Government might be prepared, in two months' time, to abandon it?

EXCHANGE RESTRICTIONS.

Mr. GIBSON: 14.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the difficulties of British woollen manufacturers in respect of their inability to obtain payment of their accounts by Greek debtors and that, although arrangements were made by the Greek Government for currency to be available at 10 per cent. half-yearly, no payments have been received by British traders in respect of the first instalment of 10 per cent. due on 26th October; and what action does he propose to take on behalf of British traders?

Dr. BURGIN: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given yesterday to the hon. Member for the Platting Division of Manchester (Mr. Chorlton).

Mr. GIBSON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the very serious position in the North of England in connection with this unfair treatment on the part of the Greek Government, and that the traders of Bradford alone have over £250,000 out in Greece, which is being held up by the action of the Greek Government?

Dr. BURGIN: Some Bradford firms are among those in whose favour the Bank of Greece has notified its readiness to release exchange to meet the first 10 per cent, instalment.

Mr. GIBSON (for Mr. HANNON): 7.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in any negotiations he may enter into with the Argentine Government for a fresh trade agreement between Argentina and Great Britain, he will endeavour to secure that a more equitable allotment of the available exchange is granted to British interests, in view of the volume of British purchases from Argentina as compared with those of other countries?

Dr. BURGIN: The exchange situation will be taken into account in the forthcoming negotiations with the Argentine Government.

AUSTRALIA (EXPORTS OF BUTTER).

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 16.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the Australian Government give a bounty on the export of butter to Britain; and what steps are to be taken to protect the British farmer from the effects of this State-aided competition?

Dr. BURGIN: So far as I am aware, there is no direct Government bounty on the export of butter from Australia, but the producers impose a voluntary levy on themselves, out of the proceeds of which a bounty is paid on all exports of butter. The second part of the question does not therefore arise.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Can the hon. Gentleman say exactly what the export bounty is per lb.?

CANADA.

Mr. COCKS: 17 and 18.
asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) the value of the imports of bagpipes into Canada for each of the last five years from this country and from other countries, respectively;
(2) the value of the imports into Canada for each of the last five years from the United Kingdom and from other countries, respectively, of electric storage batteries composed of plates measuring not less than 11 inches by 14 inches and ¾ of an inch thick; and whether he can give an estimate of the total annual production of these articles in this country?

Dr. BURGIN: Particulars of the imports into Canada of the articles in question are not available from the Canadian trade returns. As regards the production of electric storage batteries in this country, the particulars available do not distinguish these batteries according to the dimensions of the plates of which they are composed.

Mr. COCKS: Can the hon. Member tell us whether any of these batteries exist, and, if so, what is the value of the preference upon them?

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us what is the connection between electric storage batteries and bagpipes?

Mr. GIBSON: 58 and 59.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (l) if he is aware that the exchange dumping duty imposed by Canada against imports from this country is a handicap against British goods entering Canada; and does he propose to take any steps urging Canada to implement Article 17 of the Ottawa Agreement at the earliest possible moment;
(2) if he is aware that, owing to the operation of the exchange dumping duty,
leathers entering Canada under the Canadian tariff Item 605, which have been reduced under the Ottawa Agreement from 15 per cent. to the free list, have now to bear an exchange dumping duty of 14 per cent.; and what steps he proposes to take with a view to importers from this country receiving 15 per cent. preference over other countries?

The SECRETARY of STATE, for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): I am aware that a special duty is still being applied to imports into Canada of goods of a class or kind made or produced in Canada imported from the United Kingdom. The question of exchange dumping duty is, as my hon. Friend states, dealt with in Article XVII of the Canadian Agreement, and I can assure him that the terms of this Article will be kept carefully in mind.

Mr. GIBSON: Has the right hon. Gentleman given any particular attention to the fact that since he was at Ottawa, and since the Ottawa Agreements were made, sterling has gone much weaker, and the exchange dumping duty is acting adversely and much more heavily against this country, and that that obliterates entirely any preference below 15 per cent.; and will he press the Canadian Government to put Article 17 into effect immediately?

Mr. THOMAS: That is what I meant when I said that it would be kept carefully in mind.

Mr. GIBSON: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for promising to keep this point carefully in mind, will he ask the Canadian Government to get a move on with regard to Article 17?

Mr. THOMAS: The latter phrase I do not understand, but, if the hon. Member is asking roe to keep myself in touch with Canada on these points, certainly I will do so.

TRADE AGREEMENTS.

Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: 19.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will take steps to ensure that all trade interests likely to be affected will be consulted before negotiating trade agreements with foreign countries?

Dr. BURGIN: I am already in close touch with trade and industry through the Federation of British Industries and
the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, and I shall certainly take full advantage both now and in the future of any advice and assistance tendered by these bodies and other interests which may be concerned.

STOCK EXCHANGE RESTRICTIONS.

Mr. LEWIS: 48.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has any further statement to make as to the restrictions at present in force with regard to invitations to the public to subscribe to new issues of capital?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): There is no intention at present of relaxing the restriction on foreign issues. As regards optional conversions, this matter is under consideration, but I am not yet in a position to make a statement.

Mr. LEWIS: Now that the Government have so successfully completed their conversion operations, will the right hon. Gentleman leave the question of the further issues of capital to the good sense of those concerned?

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: Is my right hon. Friend yet in a position to consider the setting up of machinery to direct the flow of this capital into the directions which should be most useful to the nation?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, sir.

FILM INDUSTRY.

Mr. MANDER: 60.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether the question of the development of the film industry in the Empire was considered at the recent Ottawa Conference, and with what result?

Mr. THOMAS: Yes, Sir. I would call the hon. Member's attention to the report of the Sub-Committee on Films and Radio which appears on pages 50–52 of the Appendices to the Summary of Proceedings of the Ottawa Conference (Cmd. 4175).

JUTE BACON WRAPPERS.

Miss HORSBRUGH: 68.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Departments if he can state the amount of jute bacon-wrappers bought from the United Kingdom by Poland, Holland, and Denmark, respectively, during the last nine months; and what increase, if any, this
is in each case over the amount bought during the similar period of the previous year?

Dr. BURGIN: I regret that the published statistics do not give separate particulars of the exports of jute bacon wrappers from the United Kingdom as distinct from other jute sacks and bags, but I have asked our commercial diplomatic officers in Poland, Holland and Denmark to endeavour to obtain the required figures.

Miss HORSBRUGH: In the Trade Agreements with those countries will my hon. Friend press for imports to be imported into the United Kingdom in United Kingdom wrappers?

Dr. BURGIN: That matter will be borne in mind.

Mr. REMER: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that an order was recently placed with the Co-operative Wholesale Society in this country and that that society supplied the goods from foreign firms?

COMMERCIAL TRAVELLERS (TAXES, NORTHERN EUROPE).

Mr. GIBSON (for Mr. HANNON): 8.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether any representations have been made to the Governments of Northern Europe for the abolition of the tax upon commercial travellers, of 100 kroner in the case of Denmark, Norway, and Sweden, and 1,000 Finnish marks in the case of Finland, for permission to trade for 45 days in each country, and with what result?

Dr. BURGIN: Representations on this subject have been made to the Governments of Denmark, Norway and Sweden, and the subject will be borne in mind in connection with the forthcoming negotiations with each of the countries named in the question.

Mr. GIBSON: In view of the fact that representations have been repeatedly made, and, apparently, no notice has been taken of them, is it not time that our Board of Trade imposed these charges against their nationals who come to this country?

Dr. BURGIN: I think that the whole matter had better be left to negotiation, and not to imposition.

STEAMSHIP "PITEMIUS."

Mr. LOGAN: 6.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he can give any information as regards the safety of the crew of 16 British officers and engineers and 60 Chinese from the Merseyside on the steamship "Phemius," belonging to Messrs. Alfred Holt and Company, Liverpool?

Dr. BURGIN: I am informed by the owners that the "Phemius" arrived at Kingston, Jamaica, on the 12th November and that, so far as they are aware, the crew are well.

Mr. LOGAN: In view of the number of sea accidents, is it possible for the Board of Trade to make representations to British shipowners to carry British crews, seeing that only last week we had another accident with a Chinese crew on board?

Dr. BURGIN: I will certainly look into the matter.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is the statement in the question correct—16 officers and 60 Chinese on board one ship? Were they passengers, or were they the crew? I would like an answer, because this is a serious business. They say "Buy British," and they should employ British, not Chinese. They would employ monkeys.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

EXPORT TRADE.

Mr. MARTIN: 13.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether negotiations are now being carried on with foreign countries with a view to increasing the sale of British coal abroad; and whether the Ottawa Agreements have been used as a bargaining weapon in such negotiations?

Dr. BURGIN: The desirability of increasing the sale abroad of coal from the United Kingdom will certainly not be overlooked in connection with negotiations with foreign countries. The Ottawa Agreements have no bearing on this particular problem.

Mr. MARTIN: Is it not possible for the hon. Gentleman, when negotiating these agreements, to use the Ottawa Agreements to some extent as a bargaining weapon?

Miss WARD: 36.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware of any orders being recently placed by foreign countries with firms on the North-East Coast?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Ernest Brown): My Department does not collect information about specific contracts, but I have seen recently in the technical and daily Press, and no doubt the hon. Member has also seen, reports of orders from foreign consumers of coal, placed with suppliers on the North-East Coast.

Mr. GODFREY NICHOLSON: 55.
asked the Secretary for Mines if his attention has been called to the serious decline in exports of coal from this country to Germany; and whether he wilt state the Government's policy in connection therewith?

Mr. BROWN: Yes, Sir. Steps are being taken with a view to an early discussion of this matter in Berlin between representatives of the two Governments.

Mr. TINKER: 56.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether, in view of the heavy fall in exports of coal to Norway, Sweden, and Denmark, as shown by the annual figures from 1913 to 1931, he will state what action the Government propose to deal with the situation?

Mr. BROWN: The hon. Member may rest assured that the Government will keep coal in the forefront of the forthcoming commercial negotiations with Norway, Sweden, and Denmark.

Mr. TINKER: Are negotiations taking place at the present time with those countries?

Mr. BROWN: The first stage of the negotiations with Sweden has already been reached by the exchange on 8th November of statements showing the Swedish and British points of view. A similar exchange of statements was made this morning with Norway.

Miss WARD: Has the Parliamentary Secretary any evidence of substantial orders being lost in the export trade of this country owing to the operation of Part 1 of the Coal Mines Act?

Mr. BROWN: No, Sir.

OIL EXTRACTION.

Mr. GEORGE HALL: 21.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether
in view of the progress made in the production of oil from coal by hydrogenation and low-temperature carbonisation processes, the Government will grant such assistance as will enable large-scale plants to be erected; and will the Government consider the erection of some of the plants in South Wales?

Dr. BURGIN: I am not yet in a position to add anything to what was said on this subject by the Prime Minister on 7th November during the Debate on unemployment.

Mr. LEWIS: 35.
asked the Secretary for Mines what his Department is doing to encourage investigation as to the possibilities of extracting benzol from coal on a commercial basis?

Mr. BROWN: For a considerable number of years the production of benzol from coal has been carried Oil on a commercial basis. The average annual production of crude benzol during the past three years has amounted to about 48 million gallons.

ROYALTIES AND WAYLEAVES.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: 32.
asked the Secretary for Mines the amount paid in Great Britain in the year 1931 in mining royalties; the number of persons in receipt of income from wayleaves and royalties; and whether it is proposed to introduce legislation to buy out the royalty owners?

Mr. E. BROWN: During the year 1931, the estimated total amount payable as coal mining royalties and wayleaves, including the rental value of freehold minerals where worked by the proprietors, was £5,100,000, and, according to the latest information available, the number of persons receiving such royalties and wayleaves was approximately 3,800. I am unable to make any statement with regard to possible legislation.

Mr. DAVIES: Will the hon. Gentleman seriously consider taking some steps to remove this monstrous charge on the coal industry?

Mr. BROWN: I will have regard to what the hon. Member says, but when I sat on the other side of the House recently I wondered why it was not done then.

Mr. PIKE: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of lending the necessary funds to the trade unions so that they can purchase the royalties?

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is it not the case that Part II of the Coal Mines Act, 1930, as amended in 1932 is useless until the royalties are nationalised?

Mr. BROWN: I should be reluctant to commit myself to that statement.

Mr. CRAVEN-ELLIS: Is the cost of coal likely to be reduced by purchasing out the royalty owners?

Mr. BROWN: The hon. Member had better put that question down.

Mr. MARTIN: Is it not a fact that most of the royalty owners would be only too glad to be paid out?

Mr. BROWN: I am sure that I could not commit myself to the word "most."

WAGES.

Mrs. WARD: 34.
asked the Secretary for Mines, arising out of his meeting with the Miners' Federation, if he has any statement to make?

Miss WARD: 41.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he has received any official reply from the coalowners to his invitation to discuss nationally the question of wages?

Mr. E. BROWN: As has Already been announced on more than one occasion, the Government would welcome the establishment of some form of machinery for the joint discussion on a national basis of questions affecting the coal mining industry, not excluding questions relating to wages and conditions of employment. I discussed the matter last week with representatives of the Miners' Federation of Great Britain, and I have since addressed a letter to the Mining Association, whose reply I am awaiting.

Mrs. WARD: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us when he hopes to get a reply?

Mr. BROWN: Perhaps the hon. Lady will put that question down in the new Session and consult me as to the date.

Mr. PIKE: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind, before coming to a decision, that there is a large number of
miners and mineowners on whose behalf neither the Miners' Federation nor the Mining Association can speak?

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Have the Miners' Federation expressed themselves favourable to the National Wages Board?

Mr. BROWN: They have always done that.

Mr. PIKE: 42.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he will declare immeddiately the Government's attitude towards the respective claims of the Mine Owners' Association and the Miners' Federation of Great Britain upon the wages agreement to be concluded before July, 1933?

Mr. BROWN: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I have already given to the hon. Members for Cannock (Mrs. Ward) and Wallsend (Miss Ward), but I would like to point out that, when the guarantees given by the coalowners expire in July next, the district agreements already in force will again become effective.

TRADE DELEGATION (COPENHAGEN).

Miss WARD: 37.
asked the Secretary for Mines the object of the trade delegation's visit to Copenhagen; and whether he can give the House any information on this matter?

Mr. E. BROWN: The coal trade delegation is visiting Copenhagen, at the invitation of Danish coal-purchasing interests, in order to satisfy them as to the suitability of the various classes of British coal to meet all Danish requirements.

SILCOSIS.

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: 38.
asked the Secretary for Mines the number of cases of silicosis reported to him from each of the British coalfields up to the latest concenient date?

Mr. E. BROWN: As the reply contains a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the Official Report.

Following is the reply:

Silicosis is not a notifiable disease and the only figures are those of cases in which compensation is paid under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The number of such cases in coal mines between the 1st February, 1929, the date on which
the Various Industries (Silicosis) Scheme came into operation, and the end of 1931, was 91, including 20 fatal cases.

Figures showing the number of cases in each coalfield are only available for 1931 and the distribution of the 52 cases arising in that year was as follows:—

Cases of Silicosis arising in 1931 in which compensation was paid.


Area.
Fatal.
Disablement.


South Wales
…
5
13


Monmouth
…
5
21


Somerset
…
1
2


Staffordshire
…
1
1


Yorkshire
…
—
2


Lancashire
…
1
—



13
39

Mr. GRENFELL: 39.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he has considered the compulsory adoption of watering or dust-catching appliances when shot holes are bored in stone by power-driven drilling machines?

Mr. BROWN: The Coal Mines Act requires the use of efficient means of preventing the escape of dust from power drills when they are used for drilling in ganister, hard sandstone or other highly siliceous rock. Active measures continue to be taken to ensure effective compliance with this requirement, to ascertain which dusts are injurious to health, and in what circumstances, and to secure the use of practical and effective means of suppressing them.

Mr. GRENFELL: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us what is his objection to the adoption of compulsion? If there is a need for it in some districts, why is it not imposed all round?

Mr. BROWN: There is no reason to believe that the dust from many kinds of coal gives rise to silicosis.

Mr. GRENFELL: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that silicosis occurs everywhere—that wherever stone dust prevails silicosis follows?

Mr. BROWN: It is very difficult indeed to answer that question as the hon. Member would desire me to do, in direct fashion, because, as he knows, there is
a good deal of difference of opinion as to some of the views which have been expressed about cases that have occurred.

Mr. GRENFELL: 40.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he has received a report on the possible effect of stone-dusting on the health of men working underground; and whether he has had any record of silicosis or anthracosis cases from mines where boring by power-driven drills has not been introduced?

Mr. BROWN: The stone dusting of colliery roadways as an essential protection against coal dust explosions has been generally enforced by regulation for nearly 12 years past. It has proved remarkably effective and I know of no evidence that the practice has been injurious to health. The suitability of the dust used is constantly watched by the Inspectors of Mines and steps are taken to prevent the use of unsuitable materials. In coal mining the development of a case of death or disablement from silicosis is usually a matter of many years. It is very difficult, therefore, to relate the case fully and reliably to the working and medical histories of the worker, and at present the evidence in the very few cases which are not definitely associated with the use of power drills in siliceous rock is not conclusive. The condition of the lungs known as anthracosis is not specifically related to the use of power drills.

Mr. GRENFELL: Will the hon. Gentleman give an undertaking to the House that he will pursue the investigation, in order that the evidence may be conclusive?

Mr. BROWN: That is being regularly done; and, as regards anthracosis, the matter is receiving the attention of the Industrial Pulmonary Diseases Committee of the Medical Research Council.

COAL MINES ACT, 1930.

Mr. MARTIN: 43.
asked the Secretary for Mines if he will request the Central Council set up under the 1930 Mines Act to make a report to him within a specified time as to the way in which the quota and minimum price restrictions are operating in the inland and exporting districts, respectively, and as to whether the restrictions are being properly observed; and whether any
action should be taken to increase the volume of exports of coal from this country?

Mr. E. BROWN: The Central Council and the District Executive Boards furnish me with a quarterly report on the working of the schemes, on which the three reports already presented to Parliament have been based. A report covering the first three quarters of this year is now in course of preparation and I hope to publish it before the end of the year. With regard to the last part of the question, I understand that possible action which might be taken by the Coal Industry is under the active consideration of the Central Council and the District Executive Boards.

Mr. MARTIN: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us whether there have been any official complaints about the working of Part 1 of the Act of 1930 on the lines of those which have appeared widespread in the Press?

Mr. BROWN: The answer is that, of course, there is machinery under the Act for complaints to be made, but up to the moment very few have been made. There is one particular case, I understand, now connected with the Wemyss Colliery which will be sub judice, because I believe a co-operative society have laid a complaint.

Miss WARD: Is there any difference in the tonnage allocated by the Central Council to the respective districts and the tonnage worked by the respective districts?

Mr. BROWN: In every quarter since the regulation of output has been in force there has been a very large gap between allocation and coal output in practically every exporting district.

Miss WARD: With regard to the complaint about minimum prices, may I also ask whether the reduction of minimum prices is not in the hands of the coal-owners in the respective districts?

Mr. BROWN: Of course, the coal-owners are responsible for operating the Act, and I would point out that some of the complaints as to evasion are complaints as to evasion not altogether of the letter of the law but of its spirit.

Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE: In view of the numerous complaints against the working of Part 1 of the Coal Mines Act, will my hon. Friend advise the Government to undertake its repeal?

Mr. BROWN: I should be unwise to do any such thing until I have received from those responsible for the working of the Act a full statement of their views. I may add that I have had every letter written in the Press and every supplementary question put in the House analysed and I find that there are a good many errors of fact in them, and in addition to that it is not always easy to distinguish between assertion and fact.

Mrs. WARD: 44.
asked the Secretary for Mines how many amalgamation schemes have been effected under Part II of the Coal Mines Act; and what has been the total cost to the Exchequer?

Mr. BROWN: Seven amalagamation schemes have been effected since the passing of the Coal Mines Act, 1930. The total cost of the Coal Mines Reorganisation Commission up to 31st October, 1932, has been £36,570, but the work of the Commission has, of course, covered a much wider field than that affected by the schemes mentioned.

Mrs. WARD: 52.
asked the Secretary for Mines if there has been any unemployment as a result of amalgamations under Part III of the Coal Mines Act; and, if so, how much?

Mr. BROWN: No pits have been permanently closed under any of the amalgamation schemes effected since the setting up of the Coal Mines Reorganisation Commission, and the information at my disposal indicates that the total volume of employment has not been materially affected.

Mr. MARTIN: 54.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he can give the House information of any cases which have come to his notice showing that the operation of the Mines Act of 1930 has so restricted the expansion of a colliery company's undertakings that miners are thrown out of employment; and will he state whether his Department is possessed of information showing that in such cases there would be a market for the coal that such concerns might raise if they were not restricted by the provisions of the 1930 Mines Act?

Mr. BROWN: I have seen references in the Press and elsewhere to cases in which it is alleged that the expansion of a colliery company's undertakings has been restricted owing to the operation of the Coal Mines Act, 1930, but I have no information to show that the output of the country as a whole would be increased if the undertakings were not subject to the provisions of the Act.

Mr. MARTIN: Is it not a fact that in many of the cases which have received publicity in the Press there is a complete mis-statement of fact, and that there is a surplus quota which has not been disposed of?

Mr. BROWN: The productive capacity of the industry is still greatly in excess of the present demand. The fact is, that with one or two exceptions, the allocations on the whole have exceeded the permitted output.

Mr. MARTIN: Is it not a fact that the very people who protest in the Press against the Act of 1930 are the very people who are responsible for administering the Act?

Mr. BROWN: The coal-owners of the country, of course, are responsible. Such evasions as occur—a grave matter—are mainly evasions of the spirit rather than the letter of the Act.

Mr. G. NICHOLSON: Cannot the Government give a lead in this matter?

MINIMUM PRICES.

Mr. G. NICHOLSON: 53.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether his attention has been called to the continued evasion of the minimum prices for coal; and whether he will take an early opportunity of stating the Government's policy in connection therewith?

Mr. E. BROWN: The attention of the Central Council of Coalowners appointed under the Coal Mines Act, 1930, has again been called to evasions of the minimum price provisions of the Schemes, and I understand that the Council and the District Executive Boards have the matter under active consideration.

Mr. NICHOLSON: May I have an answer to the second part of my question?

Mr. BROWN: I have already said that I think it would be unwise to make any statement until I have seen the report.

RINGROSE FIREDAMP ALARMS.

Sir WILLIAM JENKINS (for Mr. DAVID DAVIES): 33.
asked the Secretary for Mines what percentage of firedamp will be indicated by the Ringrose gas detector during the experiments that are now being undertaken under the supervision of his Department?

Mr. E. BROWN: The setting of the Ringrose Firedamp Alarms at present undergoing trial is such that a red light should appear if the amount of firedamp in the surrounding atmosphere exceeds approximately 2½ per cent.

Mr. PIKE (by Private Notice): asked the Secretary for Mines whether, in view of the disastrous explosion of firedamp which took place on the 12th instant at the No. 9 Pit of the Garswood Hall Colliery, he will instruct the Pit Committee appointed to report upon the working results of the Ringrose Firedamp Alarm to do so immediately; and whether he will assure the House that everything humanly possible is being done to expedite the adoption of an approved gas detector?

Mr. BROWN: In my view the general adoption of this apparatus before it has been exhaustively tried under pit conditions of use and ordinary lamp-room conditions of maintenance would create conditions that might be a source of additional danger. The trials are in the charge of joint committees on which both owners and employés are represented, and I am not prepared to interfere with their discretion unduly. In my opinion, the trials have not yet been carried on long enough to allow a competent conclusion to be reached. I can assure the House that nothing is left undone by my Department which is conducive to greater safety.

Mr. PIKE: While thanking the hon. Gentleman for his reply, may I ask him if it is not a fact that during the past three months these lamps have been subjected to a test covering over 5,000 working shifts and approximately 40,000 hours; and whether he does not think that that in itself is sufficiently exhaustive to enable a decision to be arrived at as to future use?

Mr. BROWN: I have on previous occasions informed the House that I intend to call for an interim report after the working of this apparatus for six months.
I may point out to my hon. Friend that the working did not begin in the Lancashire pit until the 15th August, in the Yorkshire pit until the 1st September, and in the South Wales pit until early in October.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: In view of the recent terrible disaster, will not the hon. Gentleman now call for an interim report from the three selected collieries, so that the Miners' Federation of Great Britain and the coalowners may be examining the interim report on the results of the first three months?

Mr. BROWN: I have already said that I am calling for an interim report, but I would call the attention of the hon. Member to this phrase in the answer:
before it has been exhaustively tried under pit conditions of use and ordinary lamp-room conditions of maintenance.
The hon. Member will appreciate that that is the issue—whether the detector will operate under these conditions, and not under special conditions; and my advice is that six months is about the period for which it should be tried out.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Could not the hon. Gentleman see his way to reduce the period to three months for an interim report? Is it not the case that such detectors have already been tried for a period of four years, and that this same detector was accepted and registered as being fit for use in mines, after extensive trials, by the Secretary for Mines in 1927?

Mr. BROWN: It was because there were differences of opinion about the very point that the hon. Member has raised that these exhaustive trials in three differing pits in different parts of the country were undertaken, and I could not take the responsibility of interfering with the full working out of these trials.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

GIBRALTAR.

Lieut.-Colonel WINDSOR-CLIVE: 23.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether Gibraltar is considered to be a home station of a foreign station?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Duff Cooper): Gibraltar is a foreign service station, but
from time to time it is found necessary to send a battalion there for a, short tour whilst on the home service roster.

SIXTH YEOMANRY BRIGADE (COMMAND).

Brigadier-General NATION: 24.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether, before nominating a regular officer to the command of the Sixth Yeomanry Brigade, the command had first been offered to, and declined by, a Yeomanry officer?

Mr. COOPER: The answer is in the negative.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

RENT RESTRICTIONS ACTS (OWNERS' RATES).

Mr. TRAIN: 25.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that owners of dwelling houses in Scotland which are subject to the Rent Restrictions Acts have to pay, without relief from occupiers, all increases of owners' rates since the year 1920; and will he state the extent to which the statutory increase of 40 per cent. has been reduced on this account for the current year in the principal towns of Scotland and the landward districts of Larkhall, Blantyre, Cambuslang, and East Kilbride, all in the county of Lanark?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the second part I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a table showing in the case of the principal towns, and the landward areas mentioned, the percentage of the net rent represented by the increase in the owner's rates over those levied in 1919–20 which is payable in respect of controlled houses where the full permitted increases of rent have been made.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is the Under-Secretary in a position to tell the House whether there will be anything in connection with the reduction of rents in the King's Speech?

Mr. SKELTON: No, Sir, I am certainly not in such a position.

Following is the table:



Per cent.


Glasgow:



Glasgow parish
19.4


Govan parish
20.7


Edinburgh
8.3


Dundee
7.6


Aberdeen
2.3


Paisley
4.8


Greenock
10.3


*Motherwell and Wishaw
12.7


Clydebank
20.8


Larkhall
32.3


Blantyre
30.8


Cambuslang
27.4


East Kilbride
33.1


* On 1931–32 rates.

Mr. TRAIN: 26.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in any part of Lanarkshire, the amount of rates paid by owners has, during any year since 1920, been in excess of the statutory increase of 40 per cent., so that owners have had to meet the post-war costs of repair and mortgage interest with less rent than they had in 1914?

Mr. SKELTON: There are eases in which the amount of owner's rates payable in respect of a controlled house whose rent has been increased by the maximum amount permitted has exceeded 40 per cent. of the net rent. While in the time available it has not been possible to make a complete investigation, my right hon. Friend is not aware of any case in which the maximum controlled rent reduced by the amount of owner's rates payable is less than the 1914 net rent similarly reduced.

FISHING HARBOURS (DEBTS).

Mr. N. MACLEAN: 27.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he can make any; statement, regarding the debt position of the Scottish fishing harbours; and what, if any, remissions of debt His Majesty's Government propose to make?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir Godfrey Collins): The position as regards debt due to the State by Scottish fishery harbours is set out in Command Paper No. 3447 of 1929 and in House of Commons Paper No. 20, 1931–2. Very substantial remissions of debt due to the Development Fund were made in 1929 amounting in the aggregate to over £130,000. In addition sums amounting in
all to over £148,000 were written off in respect of debts due to the Public Works Loan Board in 1930 and 1931, making a total of approximately £280,000. These remissions were made after a comprehensive review of the situation and no occasion has arisen for a further review. In one case, however, which was not ripe for decision in 1929 the question of remitting part of the debt is under consideration.

AGRICULTURAL CREDITS.

Mr. MACPHERSON: 28.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he can now make a statement upon the position with regard to the Agricultural Credits (Scotland) Act, 1929?

Sir G. COLLINS: The banks have asked that the name of the Treasury's representative on the board of directors may be communicated to them before they proceed with the incorporation of the Scottish Agricultural Securities Corporation. I understand that the Treasury expect to be in a position to nominate their representative at an early date, and I hope therefore that incorporation will shortly proceed.

EDUCATIONAL ENDOWMENTS (DUNDEE).

Miss HORSBRUGH: 29.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has received from the Scottish Educational Endowments Commissioners their scheme for Dundee endowments?

Mr. SKELTON: The answer to the question is in ale negative.

Miss HORSBRUGH: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that one bequest of nearly £140,000 cannot be used until this scheme is produced; and can he say when he expects to receive it?

Mr. SKELTON: I am afraid that I am not in a position to anticipate the action of the Endowments Commission, but I will see if anything can be done to accelerate the report.

ALLOTMENTS (GOVERNMENT GRANT).

Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: 30.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he can now give any indication as to the amount of Government financial assistance which will be forthcoming to assist the provision of allotments in Scotland during the current year and 1933, respectively?

Sir G. COLLINS: For the purpose of assisting unemployed persons to obtain and to cultivate allotments in Great Britain, arrangements have been adjusted for the period commencing September, 1932, under which a Government grant not exceeding £12,500 will be made at the rate of £1 for £1 of money raised by subscription and expended in an approved manner up to £10,000, and of £1 for £2 thereafter. This grant cannot at present be allocated between England and Wales and Scotland. The ultimate allocation will depend on the amounts subscribed.

HISTORICAL RECORDS.

Mr. JAMES REID: 31.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he has taken, or proposes to take, for preserving Scottish records and making them available for research purposes?

Sir G. COLLINS: The matter is receiving consideration. Perhaps my hon. Friend will repeat his question in a few weeks' time, when I hope to be able to give him further information.

Mr. REID: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that the national records are at least being preserved from decay?

Sir G. COLLINS: I understand that sufficient care is being taken of these records at the moment.

ELECTRICITY CHARGES, AYRSHIRE.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: asked the Minister of Transport whether he anticipates that, as a result of recent developments, electricity rates will be reduced in Ayrshire in order that new industries may be attracted to the district?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Lieut.-Colonel Headlam): I am informed that in order to give every aid to existing industries and with the view of attracting new industries into Ayrshire, the Ayrshire Electricity Board have recently decided to grant a special discount in respect of industrial power supplies conditional on the payment of the account within a prescribed time. The Board have intimated that consistent with the provisions of the Electricity Acts the lowest possible electricity rates will be granted to any new industrial users.

DISARMAMENT.

Mr. CRAVEN-ELLIS: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to give a definite undertaking that the British representatives at the Disarmament Conference shall not pledge this country to any scheme of controlling internationally civil aviation which might impede the free development of air transport to or from Great Britain and any part of the Empire, or which might in any way prevent the free play of British invention and organisation in this respect?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): I cannot say more than I said in reply to questions on this subject on the 2nd November. It is not in. tended to make any departure from the normal practice when Governments are engaged in important negotiations.

Mr. MANDER: Is the Prime Minister aware that he will have behind him the overwhelming majority of the House in support of the policy expressed by the Lord President of the Council on this subject in his speech the other night?

Mr. RHYS (by Private Notice): asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the new French Disarmament Plans, he will give an assurance that His Majesty's Government will not assent to any proposal which can involve Great Britain in any naval, military, or air operations without her consent.

The PRIME MINISTER: I must refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I have already given this afternoon.

Mr. RHYS: I do not desire to embarrass the Prime Minister in the least, but most of the answers given on this subject deal with ratification in this House. I would only beg the Prime Minister, with all the earnestness in my power, to hear in mind the great hope that there is that the Government will not pursue this policy at Geneva and ask this House then to ratify it.

ESTATE DUTIES.

Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: 49.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the amounts of death duties collected by the Treasury from agricultural land in 1929, 1930, and 1931, or for the last three years for which statistics are available?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to my reply to his question of the 12th of May last on this subject in which I gave the figures that he asks for. I am sending him a copy of the answer

IRISH FREE STATE.

Captain PETER MACDONALD: 50.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will state the aggregate value to date of the payments made by the British Exchequer to the different pensioners and land-stock holders for whom the Free State Government has declined to accept responsibility; and what is the amount to date collected in customs which are intended to make good these advances by the British taxpayer?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Irish pensions paid up to date from the British Exchequer, in respect of which the Irish Free State Government have withheld their contributions, amount to £602,851. The sums charged to the British Exchequer to meet deficiencies on the Land Purchase Funds caused by the withholding of the land annuities by the Irish Free State Government amount to £1,142,419. Up to the 5th November, 1932, the revenue From the Special Duties imposed on imports from the Irish Free State amounted to £773,000.

Mr. LEWIS: 57.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs if he has any further information to give the House as to the dispute between this country and the Irish Free State?

Mr. THOMAS: I have nothing to add to previous statements on the subject, except that the Irish Free State Government have announced certain further bounties on goods exported to this country.

UNITED STATES (BRITISH DEBT).

Captain P. MACDONALD: 51.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can now make any statement as to the attitude of the British Government to the payment of the War debt due to the United States?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir, I have no statement to make at present.

Captain MACDONALD: Will the right hon. Gentleman be able to make a statement before the end of this Session?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I could not say. That depends on circumstances.

Mr. LAMBERT: Will the right hon. Gentleman add to his Note to the American Government the statement that with the best will in the world it is quite beyond the capacity of Great Britain to pay these debts in gold?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I imagine that my right hon. Friend will be willing to leave the matter to those who are responsible.

Oral Answers to Questions — NEW FOREST (ELECTRICITY PYLONS).

Mr. PERKINS: 62.
asked the Minister of Transport when it is proposed to start erecting pylons in the New Forest?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: As explained in the answer given by my hon. Friend on the 31st October, the matter is still under consideration and no consent has yet been given.

Mr. CHARLES BROWN: In this matter will the hon. and gallant Gentleman refuse to allow himself to be unduly influenced by people who live in houses in the area mentioned?

Oral Answers to Questions — ELECTRICITY SCHEME, ISLE OF ELY.

Mr. de ROTHSCHILD: 63.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he will take steps to ensure that the scheme for the installation of electricity in the Isle of Ely is put forward, in order that work which it is intended to carry out next summer may be available to relieve unemployment now and during the coming winter?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I am not able to identify the precise work referred to by my hon. Friend, but I am informed that the company has not only fulfilled its statutory obligations but has carried out other considerable works in the Ely district. For financial reasons the company do not consider it feasible to accelerate any further extension at present.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAGES.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: 64.
asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been called to the fact that certain foreign firms licensed to operate in this country are offering wages considerably below the standards prevalent in the district; and will he made it a condition in future licences that the wages paid to British employés must be equal to those current in the district?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Henry Betterton): It is not necessary for a foreign firm to obtain a licence in order to carry on business in this country, but if the hon. Member is referring to permits for the employment of aliens I can assure him that such permits are not granted except on condition that the wages to be paid are not less than those current in the industry. If, however, the hon. Member will send me further particulars of what he has in mind I shall be glad to inquire into them.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is the Minister aware that a French firm in Mossley is paying its labourers 7d. per hour, engineers 8½d., joiners 1s. 2d., and has recently advertised for a foreman engineer to take charge of the mechanics shop, and have offered him 11d. per hour; and that the Mossley Town Council granted the firm free rates for eight years? What is the right hon. Gentleman going to do in that case?

Sir H. BETTERTON: Perhaps the hon. Member will either come to see me, or write to me on that matter, when I shall he very glad to go into it.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman receive a deputation?

Sir H. BETTERTON: Certainly.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Thank you very much

Oral Answers to Questions — HORSE BREEDING.

Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: 67.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that provision was made in the Racecourse Betting Act that some part of the profits accruing from betting on horse races should be used to benefit British horse breeding and that no such profits have yet accrued; and if, in view of the recent reduction
of the horse-breeding grants under the economy measures of the Government he will ask the Royal Commission on Lotteries and Betting to issue an interim report dealing with the question of ensuring profits from racecourse betting for the benefit of horse breeding?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour): I am aware of the matters referred to in the first part of the question: as stated in reply to previous questions, it must be left to the Royal Corn-mission on Lotteries and Betting to decide their own procedure in the matter of the submission of an interim report on any aspect of their inquiry.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE (RURAL OFFICES).

Major CARVER: 69.
asked the Postmaster-General if he will give the minimum rate for the establishment of a purely rural post office; and the number of such post offices which have been established on the payment of such minimum rate for the last two years?

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir Ernest Bennett): The minimum is £25 10s. per annum. The rate is reviewed after six months' working and again at the end of the first year. About 160 offices were opened on this basis during the two years ended 31st October, 1932.

Major CARVER: Does the hon. Gentleman not think that that is an excessive amount for rural districts and will the Department take steps to encourage and increase these offices?

Sir E. BENNETT: No, I do not consider the expenditure involved excessive.

Oral Answers to Questions — MUNITIONS OF WAR (MANUFACTURE).

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 70.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs who was the representative of the United Kingdom on the committee for the regulation of the trade in and State manufacture of arms and implements of war; whether any change has been made recently; and on what questions of prin-
ciple the general commission of the conference has to reach a decision before the sub-committee can continue its work?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving me this opportunity to clear up a misapprehension which arose from the reply of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to a Supplementary Question last week. My right hon. Friend had in mind the fact that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs was at the moment the acting head of the United Kingdom Delegation at Geneva. On the Committee for the Trade in and Manufacture of Arms the representative of His Majesty's Government was, and is, Mr. Carr, an official of the Foreign Office. The matters of principle referred to in the last part of the Question are, firstly, the direct limitation and control of stocks of war material, which is closely bound up with the limitation and control of manufacture, and, secondly, the powers of supervision and inspection to be accorded to the Permament Disarmament Commission.

Mr. WILLIAMS: While thanking the right hon Gentleman for clearing up the misapprehension of last week, may I ask him whether any different instructions have been given to Mr. Carr, this country's representative, who has opposed any interference with the private manufacture of armaments?

The PRIME MINISTER: Not to the best of my belief.

Mr. WILLIAMS: In view of the fact that this committee has adjourned sine die, may I ask whether the representative from this country is going to revive the committee, which appears to be the only hope that anything will be done with regard to the private manufacture of armaments?

The PRIME MINISTER: No; I think that the hon. Member himself is now misinformed. The report of this committee has to be presented to the Bureau, and it may be even to the General Commission. There can be no reviving of the committee unless the report is referred back to it. In that event, of course, the whole thing would be reconsidered.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that this committee has adjourned sine die; and can he give us any idea when it is likely to be revived?

The PRIME MINISTER: It has completed its report and adjourned sine die. The report will go to the Bureau, and, if the Bureau or the General Commission decides to send back the report to the committee, the committee will be revived.

Oral Answers to Questions — MATERNITY AND CHILD WELFARE (GRANTS).

Mr. PARKINSON: 71.
asked the Minister of Health what grant will be made towards maternity and child welfare services during the current year; and what was the amount in the year 1931?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): Under the Local Government Act, 1929, separate grants for maternity and child welfare services, other than the training of midwives and health visitors, ceased to be payable in respect of any year after the financial year 1929–30. The amount of the discontinued grant formerly paid by the Exchequer in respect of these services was included in determining the loss on acocunt of grants under the Act.

Oral Answers to Questions — CYPRUS.

Mr. MANDER: 72.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the present position with regard to Cyprus; and whether consideration is being given at the present time to the constitutional position there?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): Order and tranquillity now prevail in Cyprus, and the position there may be said to be satisfactory, except that the
island is still feeling the effects of the drought which occurred last summer. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the remaining stages of the Transitional Payments (Determination of Need) Bill may be taken immediately after the Bill has been read a Second time, notwith-
standing the practice of the House relating to the interval between the various stages of such a Bill."—[The Prime Minister.]

Mr. MABANE: This Motion will prevent any Members handing in Amendments that will appear on the Paper. This is a financial Bill, and it seems to me that, if this were to become a precedent, it might be very undesirable. There are two points at issue. The first is that Members desiring to move Amendments wish that other Members should see them in order that they may decide whether to oppose or to support them. Moreover, on this Bill it is difficult to move Amendments that are in order owing to its very narrow scope. If Amendments are moved in manuscript immediately after the Second Reading, the Chairman is in the difficult position of having to decide on their merits in a matter of seconds after they are put before him. Therefore, I feel that the House is entitled to ask for some explanation as to the reason for the Motion and also for some assurance that in the case of financial Bills this may not become a precedent.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: I think we ought to protest against this growing habit of asking the House to go through all the stages of a Bill without any explanation, without any time to put down Amendments, with the inevitable result that the House is called upon to deal with manuscript Amendments. There may be justification for it in this particular case, but the work of the ordinary Member of the House of Commons is going to be made almost impossible and the position of the ordinary back bench Member is going to be made very hard indeed if we are to have the three stages particularly of a Bill of a financial character taken together in this way. I realise that this is a matter of urgency and that a little while ago everyone thought there was an agreement to get all the stages through. Whether that is so now or not I should not like to express an opinion, but it is a very bad thing for the House of Commons as a whole that we should have Bills of this character going through without a chance for the ordinary private Member, who has not the facilities of the Front Bench for getting information and putting down Amendments. It will make our position very difficult if this habit is pursued.

Mr. LANSBURY: When we first heard that the Government proposed to introduce this legislation, we said we should not obstruct but would assist the Government so far as lay in our power to get their Bill, provided we made our own position quite clear. We feel that we did that on the Money Resolution, on which the Bill is closely founded, and we understand that the Bill cannot be amended in any vital respect whatever from the financial point of view. We cannot add to the charge on the Exchequer. In the circumstances, we shall not obstruct the Bill although we are against it. We shall vote against it, as we have spoken against it. We hope that future Oppositions will follow our example and will not go in for continual repetition of arguments.

The PRIME MINISTER: I do not know that I need say anything after the last two speeches that have been made. The hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) quite rightly interprets my proposal. The House will remember that, when I announced the business last Thursday, the suggestion was made that time should be found for a discussion of the very important question of education before we adjourned. My reply was a very cautious one. It was based upon the assumption that complete agreement could be found regarding the disposal of time. I have been informed in the usual way that that agreement exists, and only upon that assurance has this Motion been put down. I am as keen regarding the rights of both Front Bench and Back Bench Members as anyone, and it was only when I got that assurance that I gave notice of the Motion.

Question put, and agreed to.

Ordered,
That the remaining stages of the Transitional Payments (Determination of Need) Bill may be taken immediately after the Bill has been read a Second time, notwithstanding the practice of the House relating to the interval between the various stages of snob a Bill.

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to—

Ottawa Agreements Bill, without Amendment.

SESSIONAL RETURNS.

Orders [13th July] that the Returns relative to Business of the House, Closure of Debate (Standing Order No. 26), Private Bills and Private Business, Public Bills, Public Petitions, Select Committees, and Standing Committees be printed—read, and discharged.

PUBLIC PETITIONS.

Fourth Report from the Select Committee brought up, and read; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Orders of the Day — TRANSITIONAL PAYMENTS (DETERMINATION OF NEED) BILL.

Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment to Question [14th November], "That the Bi11 be now read a Second time."

Which Amendment was, to leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words:
this House, realising the widespread public resentment created by the injustices inherent in the present system of transitional payments, cannot consent to the Second Reading of a Bill which fails to abolish the means test and does not remove the system from all association with the Poor Law."—[Mr. Grenfell.]

Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

Mr. KIRKWOOD: The Minister of Labour, in introducing the Bill, twitted these benches because I had moved at the Labour Conference at Scarborough that there should be no means test. I am in the proud position to-day of being able to announce that the Labour party's position is, No means test of any description whatever. That is definite. It ill becomes Members of the present Government to twit this side with having changed their opinions. It is ridiculous for men in the Government who have surrendered all the principles that they ever stood for. You have only to think of that great Free Trader, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and the President of the Board of Trade, who represents generations of Free Traders. His father before him was a Free Trader. I have heard him boast in this House that that was the way they made their millions. It was as a result of Free Trade. You will note that it was millions for the President of the Board of Trade and the Runciman family. Many Members have changed in order to be on the Government Benches. I notice the Secretary of State for Scotland. There he is. They are great Free Traders all part and parcel of the greatest Protectionist Government that this country has ever produced. Yet the Minister of Labour stands there, and in his nice, suave, English gentlemanly manner tries to poke fun at my comrades because they have
seen the error of their ways. But they have had the manhood to admit—and it takes some courage—that they have made a mistake.
Why were the Labour party in favour of the means test? It was because they honestly believed that there were individuals who would obtain benefit when they were not entitled to it. An atmosphere was created by the spokesman of the present Government which made the Labour party think that there was a great number of individuals with plenty of money who would take advantage of the Employment Exchange. Therefore, my comrades stated that they were not in favour of the State maintaining people who were able to maintain themselves. But the working-classes are generous and not suspicious. I am naturally suspicious of the ruling classes of this country, but that view does not hold good with my comrades. They did not realise, but they realise now, that the means test is being operated in a manner which they never expected. The Minister of Labour, who evidently took the pains to read my speech at Scarborough, might have given my comrades on this side of the House the benefit of the doubt, because what I moved against, and what they were against all the time, was that which is now in operation—they were against it at the Scarborough Conference—namely, the Poor Law. The Labour party did not anticipate that it would be a Poor Law scheme and scale which would be put into operation. This is not the first time that a Tory Government, a treacherous Tory Government—for it is an act of treachery—have done the same thing. In 1924 during the Labour Government that atmosphere was created in the country, and along came the not-genuinely-seeking-work clause. The right hon. Member for Preston at the time assured the back benchers that the not-genuinely-seeking-work Clause would be sympathetically administered. The means test would have been sympathetically administered if Labour had been the Government. That was the difference. It ill becomes men of the calibre of the Minister of Labour to stand up in the House and try to make capital out of the position which the Labour party occupied at that time and twit them always. If the case of the Government is sound, they do not desire to descend to personalities, nor does anybody else.
4.0 p.m.
The present Minister of Labour has a conscience. I have had a good deal of talk with him and have obtained many concessions from him, and I know that he has a conscience. He tries to make the House believe that all the speeches and appeals which we make are not having any effect upon him. But they are, because he knows that the case which is being put from this side of the House is correct and that the means test is being worked in a brutal and callous fashion throughout the length and breadth of the land. The House has heard the means test debated from all the different angles, and I believe that if it was left to a free vote of the House there could only be one decision. I challenge the Government to take the Whips off and allow the House to vote for or against the means test, when, I believe, it would turn down the means test. I have been here for 10 years and I have mixed with all manner and conditions of men and women and I am satisfied that there is not a single individual in the House who personally would mete out those conditions. I have reasoned with many of the most dyed-in-the-wool Tories, men who are supposed to have hearts of stone and to be as immovable as a rock. When you put the case to them and reason with them they admit the hardships, but when they come here together, what happens? They bow down to the party machine. They agree to vote with the Government when they know quite well that in the country there is not a Tory Member—they may call themselves Nationalists if they like—
a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet.
but they are Tories, and in heart Tories, and that is more serious than speaking as Tories, because it is actions that count, and by their actions they will be judged—there is not one representing an industrial constituency in this House who can go to that constituency and justify the means test. That being the case, it has come to a fine pass that in the British House of Commons men are casting their votes here, some of them representing thousands if not tens of thousands of electors—the Minister of Pensions had about 60,000 majority, and is therefore
representing tens of thousands of votes here—when they know perfectly well that the people they represent do not want them to vote in that direction. If it were a light affair it would not matter, but this means food, clothing and shelter to the poorest of the poor. Why, if the Germans had won the War, they could not have instituted a more debasing, more degrading form of imposition upon my fellow-countrymen. Think what they are doing by this means test! Who is being penalised? Those who have struggled all their lives.
May I be excused if, for one moment, I make a reference to my own constituency, particularly Clydebank? This is the situation which arises there. We have been fairly fortunate with employment up to the beginning of this year—a careful, frugal, indulgent working class that will compare favourably with the very best in Britain in educating their children, and in the results. The labourer struggling to make his son a clergyman; the tradesman struggling, his wife starving in many instances, to make the son a member of one of the professions, and largely successful. But with the stopping of the building of the Cunarder, thousands were thrown out who have contributed to the Unemployment Insurance Fund since its inception—never unemployed, and never drawing anything from the fund. When the first 24 weeks during which they have drawn benefit are up, they are treated the same as individuals who have been for years unemployed. They have been frugal, and because they have been abstainers, not simply abstaining from drink but abstaining in all things, temperate in all things, and they have saved. When we speak about the working class saving, it does not mean as individuals with an income of £1,000 a year. It means that they have done without something that they should have had. They put it by for a rainy day. They have used it for the children, and educated them, and now to those individuals who have sacrificed, who have always been the boast of our country, the backbone of the British Empire, this means test comes along and automatically says that it would have been just as well if they had wasted their substance in riotous living or anything else.
This great National Government with a great collection of brains, good-feeling and Christian outlook on life, men with a broad outlook, men who made big sacrifices during the War, some sacrificing their money and some sacrificing their position, because the country is in difficulties, which means that they are in difficulties, sees only one way out of those difficulties, and that is to harass and worry the poorer section of the community. That is the difference betwixt the present Government and a working-class Government. The working class are always up against it. This is no new phase. We of the working class—I have been in this all my life, and never was anything else, and my father and grandfather were never other than on the verge of bankruptcy. It is no new thing for the working class to be on the verge of bankruptcy. If it had been a working-class Government with a working-class point of view, the situation which has arisen would not have driven terror into their hearts. They would not have flown off at a tangent and attacked the widow and the orphan. Here are a Government capable of stealing a blind man's penny. That is what they are doing.
It is a terrible danger to have a Government composed of men who have the feeling which the present Government have, because in my opinion they are still all-powerful. Never before has there been a Government with such power, and yet with all that power, it uses it in this panicky fashion. The serious point about it is not so much the means test locally, as the indication of what the Government are capable of doing because they are panicky. When they are capable of doing this to their own kith and kin, their own countrymen, when they are panicky, what is going to happen when they get up against the foreigner? We shall be landed in war. Those who are controlling Britain to-day, because we are in trouble, crush down the poor working class in their own country in order to try to get out of the difficulty, and reduce the standard of life not of Chinese but of Scottish, English, Irish and Welsh as we have every evidence.
The hon. Member for the Scotland division of Liverpool (Mr. Logan) to-day in this House raised a question with the President of the Board of Trade about a ship that had 16 British officers and
60 Chinese. That was a British ship under the Union Jack. We are not objecting to the Chinese as Chinese, nor to any other countrymen. Everyone knows that I am Scottish. I have never changed my tongue to suit an Englishman, an Irishman, or any one else. I have said that an Englishman, an Irishman, a Welshman or a Chinese may be as proud of his country as I am of mine. The point is, that these people are prepared to employ anybody. [An HON. MEMBER: "And then they say: 'Buy British'." Yes, buy British but employ Chinese. They shout "Buy British," but they do not put it into practice. We find that men who have paid their contributions for years and have never been out before become unemployed for 24 weeks, and when they go before the public assistance committees in Scotland they find that in many places those committees are made up of Tories, who have the same idea as the Tories in this House. Their idea is to economise, to cut down expenses. That is how they operate the means test when anyone goes before them. They find out how much money the applicants have in the Co-op, in the savings bank, etc., and because they have been careful, they are turned adrift and told that they will get nothing.
What about the young men? My comrades have covered all that ground. They have told the House how family life is being broken up, how boys and girls are leaving home, how the young men do not want to be living on their father, their brother, or, as I know in cases, on their sister. This great Government, this powerful Government is breaking the hearts of tens of thousands of mothers at the present time. If they think that the working classes are going to tolerate it much longer, they are making a great mistake. We have got in this Bill what the Government consider to be a concession. I consider it an insult. It is not only with the Communists that the Government have to deal. It is not a case simply of gaoling the Communists, as they did Wal Hannington, after giving him a farce of a trial. That will do no good, but a great deal of harm. This Bill is the outcome of the great many complaints with which the Minister of Labour has been deluged. A petition is coming from my constituency, Dumbarton, which has been hard hit, a place with a Tory town council. They are sending a peti-
tion calling for the abolition of the means test. That is not a revolutionary Socialist centre by any stretch of the imagination. The Minister of Labour knows that six months ago, when the General Assembly was sitting in Scotland, under Sir Ian Colquhoun, I asked him, in a Supplementary Question, whether it was not a fact that the means test was raised and protested against at that sedate Scottish Assembly. We have had petitions from all over the country, arid not only from the West of Scotland. The Minister of Labour knows that perfectly well.
The Prime Minister stated in Edinburgh, when he had been the Prime Minister in charge of the Tories for only three weeks, that if it was found that the means test was irksome to work they would go into the matter very carefully and if necessary remove the means test. Therefore, it is not that this Government in any kind of philanthropic mood, after having sat down and carefully considered the situation, have produced the present Bill. We have had agitations all over the country, demonstrations and riots. I know what it is to be in riots. I have led a riot. I know what it is to be batoned by the police. My poor head carries a mark that I shall take to my grave. I do not want any riots, but I want the Minister of Labour and his understudy to consider well what is happening. What is it that the working class, my class outside—it is outside that matters, not here, where folks are well fed, well clothed and well slept—are thinking and saying? They are watching this place and they are saying that there is nothing in this Bill. The Bill was heralded before it was produced as a great concession to the working classes. The working classes are saying that the House of Commons is not worth a button. Look what they did in Belfast. They had a not and they got concessions. At Birkenhead they had a riot, and they got concessions.
We appeal to the Government to exercise their power in the right way and not to crush the workers. Let them try another way. The method of the ruling class in this country has always been to crush the workers. Whenever there was anything to be done they reduced wages. If the Government think that they are as great a Government as they see them-
selves, with all the wealth and power of Britain behind them, let them attempt something else. Let them see if they cannot act as a Government in the way they would act as individuals. Cannot they be generous for once? Generous with English, Scottish and Welsh men and women; their own kith and kin. No. They are going to do nothing of the kind. They give us this Bill, which reminds me of one of Aesop's Fables. They heard a great rumbling in the mountain, and the people went up into the mountain to see what was making the terrible din. When they got up, what did they discover? They discovered that the mountain had produced a mouse. I liken this Government to the mountain, and all that they have produced is this poor little Bill. They ought to be ashamed of themselves.
4.30 p.m.
They are always talking about the ex-service men. They go to the Cenotaph and stand with long, solemn faces, but that does not cost them anything. Moreover, it is fashionable. Let it be fashionable to extend the right hand of fellowship. Let those who are well off, those who are comfortable, extend the right hand of fellowship. Where is all the cameraderie that they talked about during the War. Where is all the equality of sacrifice? It is all so much nonsense. I can assure the House that the Labour party—and I am speaking here on behalf of the Parliamentary Labour Party—say that there should be no means test and that as soon as we get the opportunity we shall take it right out of the Statute Book; we shall repeal the Act root and branch. The only means test that should be applied to a man or woman when they go to the Employment Exchange is that they should be offered a job, and if there is no job for them then it is the duty of the community to maintain them and their dependents in comfort, not simply the subsistence allowance which they are getting just now. I remember extracting from the right hon. Gentleman who is now the Dominions Secretary, the information that there were then 1,250,000 unemployed for whom neither the Government nor the employers could find work. The number now is over 3,000,000, and we say that as neither the employers of labour nor the Government can find work for them you have no right to treat them as an army of criminals, they should be treated with justice and respect. That
is the Labour party's position, and we shall fight this means test just as we shall fight unemployment. Whatever Government is in power unless it tackles the problem along the lines I have suggested unemployment will bring down every Government that assumes office.

Mrs. SHAW: In the short time that I shall detain the House I have no wish to follow the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) down gloomy paths. I could do so, but I do not care to make political capital out of the sufferings of other people. If I do him the credit for being sincere I hope he will also do me the credit for being sincere when I say that the courage and fortitude with which the people have borne the hardships imposed by the means test is beyond all words of commendation. I welcome the Bill because it gives a certain amount of uniformity, and I shall go into the Lobby in support of it. But as one who has worked for some considerable time on a local authority I feel constrained to say a word or two on at least two points. I appreciate the fact that the task of drawing a line of demarcation between just and proper legislation whereby the State provides for and guards the welfare of the old, the weak, and the unfortunate and still does not put an unjustifiable load on those who thrive by their own industry and toil, is not only an extremely difficult one but requires a great deal of political courage. Indeed, it creates a situation in which it is extremely difficult to hold to one's own position firmly and at the same time show sympathy with the people.
There is no doubt that Sub-section (2) of Clause (1) which deals with those applying to the Poor Law will mean a very heavy addition to local rates. It will add not only to the cost of the Poor Law but to the cost of administration. I find myself asking the question, why do this now, particularly when the Government is pressing local authorities to economise. They cannot possibly economies and put this Bill into practise. Naturally I want to put the case of Scotland. Last night the hon. Member for Maryhill (Mr. Jamieson) put the case very clearly as regards the operation of the Poor Law in Scotland and I shall not waste the time of the House by going
over the points he made. We have been treating the poor in Scotland along two lines, under the Act of 1845, and under the Act of 1921, whereas in England, as I am informed, they have only operated under one Act. The hon. Member for Maryhill last night spoke of Glasgow and I hope I shall not be considered too self-contained if I mention the county with which I am more immediately concerned—Lanarkshire. The hon. Member said that the probable increase in cost would be £75,000. I have no reason to doubt his figure and, therefore, taking that figure as the basis of my calculations I have worked out the figure, and I find that it will mean an increase of £25,000 in the rates of Lanarkshire, or 4d. in the pound on the rate.
I do not exaggerate when I say that the county of Lanarkshire cannot stand that increase. The industries of the county are very hard hit, coal pits are closing down, many of them never to be opened again, and hundreds of people are being put out of employment. I have the figures but, unfortunately, they are almost nine months old. At the same time they are not exaggerated because there has been an increase since then. In the iron and steel works there are 10,153 unemployed workmen and in the coal mining industry, 13,085 unemployed. These are an extra burden on the ratepayers. I do not wish to weary the House with figures but I should like to make one comparison, and it is this. The figure for the county of London for the Poor Law per 10,000 of population is 316, for Lanarkshire it is 658, and in my own immediate neighbourhood it is 706. That gives some indication of the weight of local rates which ratepayers in Lanarkshire have to bear. It is not only in Lanarkshire but the same thing applies in a lesser degree to many other counties. Small wonder is it that the industries of Scotland are suffering so much. There was a time when one could have said that the magnetic call of the "land of brown heath and shaggy wood," made a great claim on the foreigner. Nowadays with the weight of local rates Scotland has lost all attraction for the industrialist. I hope when the Bill gets into Committee that the Minister of Labour will give us some assurance that he will have regard to the part of the Bill which applies to the Poor Law in Scotland.
The other point to which I desire to draw attention is the case of the ex-service man. I am sorry that the Minister has not seen it possible to be more generous in this connection. I should like to have seen disability pensions disregarded altogether, or treated in a category by themselves, but the Minister's reassuring answer to the hon. and gallant Member for North St. Pancras (Captain Fraser) has raised my hopes that probably he will be more generous at some future time. There is one point in connection with disability pensions which has been referred to frequently during the Debate. It is said that the pension is given partly in recognition of services rendered and partly for subsistence. In this connection I am guided by the principles laid down for awarding pensions which says:
The amount of compensation is therefore determined, not with reference to the individual pensioner's capacity, or failure of capacity, to earn a livelihood either in his former occupation or in another, but with reference solely to the effect of his war service on his physical condition.
And it goes on:
It is not the function of a war pension to meet impairment due to the circumstances of the man's civil life, or to advancing age; nor can such extraneous questions as the state of the labour market and consequent facility or difficulty of obtaining employment be taken into account.
If that is the principle upon which war pensions were awarded it should be the guilding principle when a disabled man applies for any form of relief. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take that aspect of disability pensions into consideration, and if it is too late for him to do so in this Bill that he will keep it before him for future consideration.

Lieut.-Colonel CHARLES KERR: I would like the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) to justify the abolition of the means test in the division I represent. Let me give him one or two episodes which occurred during the by-election that I contested. I found that a great many of the unemployed men who were receiving the transitional payment were in favour of the means test. There was a very simple reason why. The easiest way to understand it is to put oneself into the position of, and to visualise, the man who spoke to me on the subject. He had
been in really good work and receiving splendid wages, but through his works being shut down he had fallen on evil times, and had gone down and down until he came to the transitional payment. There he was, and the transitional payment meant life to him. He knew quite well that some people were receiving the payment when they really did not need it. That is the answer to the hon. Member. Many thousands of people, and far more than hon. Members on the Opposition Benches appreciate, are in favour of the means test, and for the reason I have stated.
It is undoubtedly the duty of us all to protect the unemployed and to watch over them, not only now, but, what is still more important, in the future. We must think of the future in this matter. The Opposition well know what danger there was a year ago in this country. They know perfectly well that it was touch-and-go whether the unemployed were to receive anything at all. That is the point. The country was in great danger. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense!"] Never mind whether it was nonsense or not; it was a fact. When hon. Members appreciated the danger that the country was in they left the ship, and the National Government took the ship over when it was very nearly on the rocks. [Interruption.] I am stating what actually took place. I am not making any attack on hon. Members. There was a danger in the future of these people about whom we are so concerned to-day, and, as I have said, the National Government took over the ship when it was practically on the rocks. The unemployed had already had a warning. They had had cuts in the benefit. They do not want any more; they do not want to feel that there is danger of more cuts in the future.
I have heard references more than once to the relief of taxation at the expense of the poor. It is well known to anyone who studies present financial conditions that the goose has ceased to lay golden eggs, or that the eggs have become smaller. Before he left office Lord Snowden told us very wisely that it was not the duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer so much to think of what he could get out of people by taxation but of what was left behind for future taxation. That is what we have to consider to-day. We know perfectly well that if
we put more taxation on the taxpayer we shall get less than we get to-day. Therefore I feel that any legislation which tends to reduce any unnecessary expenditure is the right legislation for us to pass. The question of getting the money is what is worrying everyone. We know quite well that to implement the Anomalies Act it was necessary to have a means test. There is no question whatever about that.
I would like to add a few words to what was said by the hon. Lady the Member for Bothwell (Mrs. Shaw) as to the disability pension of ex-soldiers and others. I know that the Government do want to give more, do want to replace all the cuts. But all of us who are in business know the condition of the world to-day, know the condition of trade and commerce in this country, and know how hard the Government must find it to make both ends meet. That fact is patent to us all. But I ask the Government to consider this question of disability pensions. All men who were knocked about in any way during the War realise as they get older how the disability from which they suffer taxes their strength more. I beg the Government to bear this fart in mind, and when things can be helped a little bit to remember these people. I know the Government will do so because their heart is in the right place.

Mr. COCKS: The hon. and gallant Member for Montrose (Lieut.-Colonel Kerr) is, I think, a very simple soul. He still believes in the currency crisis of last year, still thinks the country was nearly on the rocks, and that the crisis was not manipulated. As far as it existed the crisis ceased when the country went off the Gold Standard. Therefore the hon. and gallant Member's argument, based on the assumption that the country was En a critical position then and would soon be in a critical postion again if we abolished the means test, falls to the ground. I am rather sorry that there is no one present representing the Ministry of Labour, because I want to say something about the speeches of the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary. In reading through the speech of the Minister of Labour I feel that he does not yet appreciate the exact reason why we oppose the means test. I will put it in a few words as simply as I can. The
position we take up is this: We believe that the three-million-odd unemployed are not unemployed through their own fault. They are not paupers; they are not people who have reached the poverty and unemployable stage through weakness of character or some fault of their own. We say that they are unemployed purely as a result of the failure of the economic system to provide them with work. That being the case, the fault lies in society, and we say that these men and women have the right to demand from society everything that is required to keep them in health and strength and to preserve their self-respect. That is our position.
We object very strongly to the term that is used both by the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister of Labour when they refer to these payments as State relief. We do not look upon the payments as State relief. We regard them as compensation paid by society to these workers because society has failed to provide them with the employment which they would much rather have. It is very inadequate compensation, but still it is in the nature of compensation which they have a right to demand. When I am told by the Minister of Labour that I am acting against the interests of the agricultural labourer or the black-coated clerk, my answer is, "Bring them into the scheme also. Bring everyone into the scheme who has an income of £500 and under. Bring them all in and treat them in exactly the same way."
My second point is this: Just as from the point of view of the unemployed I look upon these payments as compensation so from the point of view of the State I look upon the payments as a preservation of capital. I believe that the real capital of the country is not the useless gold in the vaults of the Bank of England, useless metal which might be thrown into the sea without any damage to the country—I hope it will be one one of these days, so that we shall never get back to the Gold Standard—but is in the flesh and blood of our people. What I suggest is that by imposing a means test the Government are wasting that wealth, diminishing it. It is a recognised fact that as a result of the means test, which gives very inadequate payment, men and women who are undergoing that test, at least one
million of them, are being under-nourished, are losing their strength and their capacity for work, are losing their health, and in many cases are actually dying as a result of the starvation methods that are employed. That can be proved from a report of the Archdeacon of Northumberland who, with a number of clergy, investigated this particular matter. What he said ought to be put on record:
Our attention was first arrested by the almost unanimous request on the part of unemployed men that what was really most needed was food. In visiting we have observed that the mothers are suffering from under-nourishment, particularly in families where there are several children.
The Committee also state:
It (the working of the means test) has clearly led to a great decrease in helping each other out by neighbours and relations. It has thereby considerably increased the number of families who have nothing but the hare benefit to live on.…It is our considered opinion that even as a bare maintenance level, standard benefit in this area"—
that is around Newcastle—
is failing to maintain families adequately. This is specially obvious in cases where the wage earner has been out of work for a long period. The fact is standard benefit has never been adequate, but it has been eked out by one family helping another. Now that the means test has taken pensions, etc., into account this has become impossible.
I quote one further paragraph:
The growing opposition to the means test is partly due to this fact. Everyone has been brought down to a level too low for bare maintenance. Debt, and fear of increasing debt, inability to replace clothing, boots and cooking utensils are adding to the danger of under-nourishment by creating an irritable mentality.
5.0 p.m.
It seems to me that that proves conclusively that by imposing the means test you are destroying the chief wealth of the country. You are ruining the nation by starving and degrading the people. After all, what is a country without its people? The workers of this country represent the nation far more than do the alien fiananciers in Lombard Street. My suggestion is that in a case of this sort we should put everything into the pool in order to save the health of the people. Next week a new Session of Parliament will be opened with great pomp and pageantry. There will be much glitter, and as always a great display of
diamonds, but while a new Session is being opened people are dying through your legislation. It seems to me that the hunger marchers made a great mistake. They ought to have waited until next week.
There are one or two points to which I desire to reply before I come to the central point which I would urge upon the House. First, there is the question of savings. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry, when he spoke last week, and the hon. and learned Member for Central Nottingham (Mr. O'Connor), who spoke yesterday, were, I think, rather cynical on that subject. They first said that the money which these poor people possessed was not necessarily all savings; that they might have inherited it, and so forth. I am afraid that not many of the working people of this country are so fortunate as some hon. Members of this House who make remarks of that kind. They also said that the workers who saved did so to provide for a rainy day and, they added, "Here is the rainy day and it is for them to open the umbrella." As a matter of fact, when working people save it is not specially for what is called a rainy day, or for a spell of unemployment, although that consideration is ever present to their minds. Their real reason is in order to protect themselves against poverty in old age, when they are past work altogether. If you are going to take for 10 years the savings of a man of 40 or 45, whether they amount to £300 or not, then by the time that man is 50 or 55 he will have nothing left. Such a man will have to spend his later years in poverty and pauperism. I consider that a very mean saving on the part of the Government and a very sad reward for thrift.
The second question is that of anomalies. We have had trotted out in this Debate the usual figures about people owning thousands of pounds and drawing benefit. From the personal point of view no one is going to defend that. At the same time we know that this Bill was not brought in to deal with those anomalies but to save money all round by cutting everybody down and imposing the burden of maintaining the unemployed upon the families of the unemployed. The Government have imposed what amounts in many cases to an income tax of 10s. in the £ on the mem-
bers of the families of the unemployed. Even in these anomaly cases one does not always know the exact circumstances. It may be that a man who has saved £1,000 is entitled to benefit. Such a man may say: "I am not going to draw the benefit for myself but many of my neighbours are suffering cuts under the harsh administration of local authorities and I will draw the money to which I am entitled and hand it over to my neighbours in order to help them to eke out their scanty resources." That is a position which I would not condemn and which I might take myself if I were faced with such circumstances. But in any case, in order to catch a few people like that, you are imposing undeserved humiliation upon 1,000,000 people. The hon. and learned Member for Central Nottingham rather cynically asked what was the humiliation in the means test and what was the difference between it and an Income Tax demand. What a "grotesque and ridiculous" comparison to use the famous words of Lord Snowden. What happens when a wealthy man receives his Income Tax demand?

Mr. J. JONES: He dodges it.

Mr. COCKS: Not himself. He does it by deputy. He hands it over to a firm of chartered accountants with instructions that they are to get as many deductions as possible, and that is all the investigation that happens. But in the case of the means test for the unemployed, what happens? How would the hon. and learned Member for Central Nottingham like to have an investigator coming to the place where his house is situated and inquiring from all his neighbours as to whether they think his income is more than he has stated it to be? But that is what is clone among the poor. How would he like an investigator coming to his house and asking if he is really married to his wife and whether his children are legitimate or not? [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Yes that is done now and the hon. and learned Member for South Nottingham (Mr. Holford Knight) who is sitting opposite is only exposing his ignorance of what is going on in this matter if he denies that that is so.

Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT: Will the hon. Member say where these things are occurring?

Mr. J. JONES: You ought to know. In the place of which you used to be Recorder.

Mr. COCKS: If I may be allowed to proceed, I would say that if such questions as are being asked of poor people were asked of Members of this House, the investigator would be thrown downstairs, and rightly so.

Mr. J. JONES: Some of them have been.

Mr. COCKS: But it is only the poor in this country who are subjected to these humiliations. I should not be surprised if some of these investigators got broken heads or perhaps broken necks before this matter is finished with. The right hon. Gentleman for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland) said that one of the difficulties at the present time was to draw a line which would allow the unemployed man sufficient to keep himself but not too much, and yet avoid penalising him for thrift. But that is not the line which has been drawn by the public assistance committees and the Government in- the administration of the means test. The line is drawn to-day between semi-starvation and absolute starvation. In many cases that line has been crossed and people are dying, no doubt, as a result of the administration of the means test. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]

Mr. BUCHANAN: Yes, undoubtedly so.

Mr. LUKE THOMPSON: Is it not true that 50 per cent. of these people have no means test whatever and that 70 per cent. of the total people concerned get full benefit?

Mr. COCKS: I am only dealing with the people who are suffering under the means test.

Mr. THOMPSON: That is just my point.

Mr. COCKS: There are 3,000,000 people drawing unemployment benefit. About 1,000,000 of them are on transitional payment and it is with those I am dealing. The others do not come under the Bill at all. I come now to the central objection which we urge to the means test. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour some time ago supported this principle of reckoning the family income wholesale—not by individuals but by the
whole family—and he expressed the belief that a huge majority of people supported that idea. We deny that that is the case and' we oppose that principle which we do not consider to be just. In fact I think it is disgusting, revolting and obscene and that is why I am opposed to -it. It is creating tragedies in countless homes all over the country. [Interruption.] Yes I used the word "obscene" and I hope that hon. Members opposite will remember it.
I give one example and the case which I am about to mention is not an extreme one at all. There are many worse cases but this one came under my own notice and opened my eyes to a great deal of what was going on. I went into a room in a house at Arnold near Nottingham. There was an old man of 62 who was out of work pacing to and fro from the living room to the scullery like a beast in a cage. He had no boots fit to go out in and no tobacco for his pipe. His wife was suffering from glaucoma. She had lost a son in the War and as a result was getting a pension of 5s. a week. She had another son a man of 35 who was unemployed. Because she had a pension of 5s. a week, in respect of the son who had been killed, this other young man had been cut down from 15s. 3d. to 12s. The Minister of Labour surprised me the other day when he said that many of the charges made against the public assistance committees were so much cant. I consider that action of the sort which leads to what I have just described is not merely callous but is the action of a cad. That is the only phrase which expresses it properly.
In this case the mother told me in the presence of the son that in order to fit out this young man and make him respectable, because he was the only member of the family who could go out to look for a job, she and her husband had to spend their own money to buy him boots, clothes, collar, and so forth. When she told me that I could see in her eyes the resentment which she felt at the fact that in order to fit out this son, her "old man" had to be deprived of his tobacco and could not go out of the house because he had no boots to wear. On the other hand I felt how humiliating that position must be to the son himself. He knew what was being sacrificed for him and perhaps he felt that it would
have been better for him if he had been left lying by the side of his brother on the fields of France. That sort of thing can be multiplied by the thousand—fathers being kept by children, of whom perhaps the fathers rather disapprove, grown-up men being kept by their fathers, brothers being kept by their sisters. Can the House not imagine what is happening, the jealousies, the hatreds, the humiliation intensely felt in thousands of ways? All that is the result of the operation of this family test, and that is why we are opposed to it. I wonder there are not more suicides in this country, now that gas is so cheap and convenient.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell) was much criticised and attacked yesterday for what was called the violence of his language, but no language can be too violent to condemn such a situation, and I should find it difficult not to excuse action, however violent it might be. I am personally a, constitutionalist—at present I am, anyhow. I believe in constitutional action, but if ever there was a situation in this country which justified armed revolt, the system brought about by the means test is such a situation, and the Government may thank themselves that the people of this country are not to-day an armed proletariat as they were in the Middle Ages. If everyone had a rifle in his home, there would be no means test, and perhaps there would be no National Government, especially when we know by whom this test is imposed.
I did not quite agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Gower when he described the kind of people who are behind this means test as being people sitting in clubs and drinking sparkling wines. My experience is that some of the greatest enemies of the working classes of this country are the thin-lipped financiers who drink nothing stronger than water, and if you want an example of that—though it is someone who knows very little about finance—take Lord Snowden, who drinks water and spits poison. It is these financiers to whom the Government surrendered last year and to whom they have been slaves ever since.
When I speak, as I did earlier to-day, of English manhood as being wasted by the operation of the means test, I often get a good deal of sympathetic support
from English people, but I do not expect to get any support at all from the dark-complexioned financiers who rule the country to-day, who have dictated this means test and these economies, who do not care about the future of the Anglo-Saxon race at all, but who care for their money power and for their dividends, and who, in order to save those, are quite prepared to doom a whole race to ruin. We see on the Government Bench Members of the Cabinet, men with charming manners and pleasant voices and all the atributes of English country gentlemen, but they too are in the grip of this alien and abhorrent power, this power of international finance which has the whole country in its tentacles; and those tentacles will have to be cut, if necessary by the sword, before England can regain her freedom.

Mr. PIKE: I do not intend to follow up the remarks of the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks), who has just resumed his seat, for fear that I may imagine I am back again in the days of the past. I can assure him that he has not in any way given expression to the thoughts of the people of this country in so far as their attitude even towards the bad side of the administration of the means test is concerned. Had he been expressing it, it is quite possible that we should have met, some time ago, many of the terrible conditions at which he has hinted. I think, nevertheless, that no opportunity should be lost of throwing cold water—nothing is better than cold water to cool down a heated temper—upon what I consider to be the hon. Member's very indirect incitement to civil war and public disturbance. He said that it was lucky indeed for the people of this country that the opening of Parliament, about to take place next week, was not held during the period of the hunger marchers' stay in London. Why did he suggest that? It does not need anything beyond a child's mind to analyse the undoubted incitement at the back of the suggestion, and coming from those benches—we do not expect very much better from them, I will admit—it only adds another warning to the already great overflow of warnings that Members on those benches, individually and collectively, have uttered from time to time.
I want to ask the Minister to regard what I consider to be one of the causes
of bad administration in a different light from that in which it has been presented to him by many of the speeches upon this Bill. I have listened to every one of them since yesterday afternoon, and I have not yet heard it suggested to the Minister that one of the troubles under the means test is not the test itself, nor the administration of the test, but the failure of those who administer it to understand thoroughly the mentality of the people to whom they administer it. I do not suggest that those who have to apply the means test are any less intelligent than I am, but it will be recognised in all parts of the House that there is a time in the lives of humble men and women when they may be overcome by the importance of the moment, and I have discovered cases in my own division of people who have gone before public assistance committees, been overcome by the importance or the moment, and been unable to express themselves thoroughly and to make their cases properly understood by the committee. In consequence, the benefit that they should have received has only been given in proportion to the facts that they in their dilemma have placed before the committee.
I will ask the Minister to consider the desirability of issuing some very simple pamphlet containing questions to claimants by the public assistance committees, to be placed in the claimants' hands some days before, in order to give them an opportunity thoroughly to understand the questions and to be prepared to answer them in a manner fitted to the conditions that they desire to place before the committees. During the last seven months I have dealt with over 163 eases of men and women who have been before the public assistance committee, and who have not received what they have considered to be their just measure of benefit. They have come to me and have explained the position thoroughly, and I have asked the committee to reconsider their cases. Because I have had the person quietly in my office, and he or she has spoken to me like an ordinary man or woman in the street and explained the position thoroughly; and I have been able ultimately to put before the committee facts that they in their excitement did not reveal when they themselves were before the committee. The result has been that in 116 out of 134 cases so
presented, increased allowances have been granted and definite statements have been made to me that the facts as I had revealed them later were not revealed by the claimants in the first instance. I ask the Minister to consider that point.
Another point that I would like to make, very emphatically, is with regard to the number of cases which we, as Members of this House, receive from our constituents and from outside, containing a whole pack of lies and misrepresentations. People come to you and tell you what their income is, how much this son or that daughter earns, and how much is not going into the house, and when you have the case ultimately put before the authorities, you find that those so-called facts are not true. I would ask the House, individually and collectively, to help the Ministry, the public assistance committees, and the administrators of what one might call a very unpopular piece of legislation, to administer it properly, by bringing to their notice on every possible occasion those people who bother us with misrepresentations and lies. After all, that is a public duty that falls upon our shoulders, and it is one that we should try our utmost to carry out.
Yesterday the senior Member for Dundee (Mr. Dingle Foot), quoted from page 289 of the report of the Royal Commission, as follows:
'One of the normal inducements to earn is the power to spend some part at least of wages in satisfaction of personal inclination.'"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th November, 1932; col. 803, Vol. 270.]
5.30 p.m.
Much more has been said in this House upon that point since yesterday afternoon, but I want to point out an important factor, which a good many Members are either afraid or reluctant to admit. Take a case of a woman and her husband and two sons, who are both working, and the sons are earning, say, 25s. a week. There is a natural desire on the part of those sons to have some pocket money, and no one will induce me to believe that in every instance throughout this country the father or the mother knows what their sons actually earn. There is a certain dishonesty in relating to their parents the facts as to their earnings, because they know, especially
in the hard-hit districts, that the more they declare their earnings to be, the greater will be the amount taken from those earnings and so from their weekly personal maintenance. There is a greater tendency perhaps to-day to declare a false figure than to declare the true figure. I am in whole-hearted agreement with some hon. Members of the Opposition when they say that there should be a definite percentage of earnings fixed as required for the "satisfaction of personal inclination." If you fixed a figure of that description, I say that you would have the truth revealed as to the earnings of the sons or daughters in households, when applications for benefit are made to public assistance committees and other bodies. Under the present system we must have what is called the inquisition. If a committee discover that men have told lies about the income going into their houses, where can the truth be discovered except from the information in the hands of employers? It is an inquisition which we as Englishmen probably do not like, but unfortunately, when we are operating public money for the purpose of maintenance, we must have an inquisition of that description so long as there is a temptation to tell lies as to earnings and incomes. I ask the Minister to come at the earliest possible moment to some arrangement as to a percentage of earnings which should be taken first for the satisfaction of the earner's personal requirements and inclinations. We have to remember that no matter what the justification for the provision in regard to savings, there is a tendency on the part of the man who is unemployed to meet his full requirements from savings. If an unemployed man has £300 in the bank, he is not likely, as the report says, to leave his £300 untouched in the bank simply because he is receiving benefit. He will dig into a portion of his savings, and if the figure is to be fixed at £300, some recognition must be made of the possibility of a diminishing return. In one week that £300 may fall to £295, and at the end of the month to £285. If the man is unemployed for six or 12 months, his £300 may very quickly fall, especially if he has children to keep, to £200. It is only fair that that man should have an opportunity of declaring from time to time his actual capital holding.
There is another point which unfortunately this Bill does not meet. A man may have £300 invested as, unfortunately, I have at the moment, in shares which nobody wants, and which are worth on the market no more than 3s. 7½d. each. If a man owns £300 in such shares, is his capital to be regarded as £300, or 300 times 3s. 7½d.? He has £300 on paper, but in actual realisable value he has nothing like that sum. This is a question which is asked throughout the constituencies, and it concerns people with a small amount of savings. Allegations have been made from the other side of the House as to the feelings of ex-service men towards the concession granted in the Bill. As the president of a branch of the British Legion, I say emphatically that ex-service men are thankful beyond expression for the concession addressed a mass meeting of them on Saturday night and placed before them the nature of this Bill. I did not hesitate to say that there must be some pensioners who would not receive benefit through it, but I pointed out, what was true, that it would mean that 85 per cent. of disability pensioners would in future be able to satisfy themselves on the point that none of their pensions would be taken into consideration when their incomes were being assessed under the means test. There are 600,000 disability pensioners in the country. Over 200,000 are on the 8s. level, and 75,000 on the 12s. level. These men are to be put in the position that their pensions will come into consideration for the purposes of assessment.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I am anxious to know how the hon. Gentleman reaches that conclusion. He says that a pensioner with 8s. per week will have none of the pension taken into consideration.

Mr. PIKE: It will, in fact, amount to nothing.

Mr. BUCHANAN: This Bill says that 50 per cent. is to be ignored.

Mr. PIKE: What I mean is that when the 50 per cent. of the total pension received is taken into consideration, it will enable the committees to administer to the limit to these people, whereas if they were in receipt of full pension, and their full pension was taken into consideration, certain deductions from the limit would have to be made. This Bill is therefore a concession to the ex-service men—
[Laughter]. Hon. Members can laugh, but it is at least a concession which they never gave, and never even thought of giving, when they spoke so loudly in praise of ex-service men. I have yet to know upon whose authority in any circumstances Members on the other side of the House can claim to speak on behalf of ex-service men. I know of no ex-service men who have given them that authority.
The question of the family income has been forced home from the other side of the House, and it is undoubtedly a problem. I am not so much concerned about the effects of the Measure in splitting up families, as about the fact that the Measure affords a temptation to certain members of the family to leave home in order to get money from the public purse to which they are not entitled. The temptation is the thing that matters. In my district there are young men who have left home, because, while remaining at home, the income of the household was sufficient in the eyes of the public assistance committtee to disentitle the men from benefit. A man, for instance, will leave home and take lodgings with Mrs. Jones or Mrs. Brown at 3s. per week. He has the remainder of his allow0ance left and takes it back to his home. He gives his parents so much of what is left for maintenance, and at the end of the week has pocket money which he would not have had he not left home. There is a temptation to young men and women to leave home as the only means whereby they can take money from the public purse to which they are not legitimately and genuinely entitled. I ask the Minister to look at that point seriously.
The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) spoke yesterday of the humbug and cant of Members on this side of the House, and the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) said today that all that this party appeared to do was to allow itself to be pulled hither and thither by the party machine. Fancy he of all Members condemning any Members of the House for allowing themselves to be pulled about by the party machine. If Members of the Opposition really believe that there is such a thing as hypocrisy, cant and humbug on this matter, I ask them to remember the position of their own party less than 12 months ago in respect of the means test. The Leader of the party made the definite
statement in January, 1930, that it rested with the guardians to decide on the appropriate form of relief, but that in coming to that decision they should be guided by the need of the individual household and not automatically by rule. When the party runs away from principle underlying that policy in a short 11 months for no given reason whatever, it hardly becomes them to accuse anybody of humbug or hypocrisy. A statement by the Leader of the Opposition in November last year has often been repeated, but it is such good capital that it is worth quoting again. Why should the Opposition be allowed to get away from all their responsibility in this matter? During the last two days they have never mentioned their responsibilities. One cannot help at times accusing them of attempting to make political capital at the expense of the poverty-stricken conditions of the people of the country. The Leader of the Opposition stated in the House on the 13th November last year:
As to the means test … I am not prepared to give people money year after year without knowing what is their own personal position; that is to say that if a person has gone out of ordinary benefit and has means of his own to maintain himself, I am not prepared to pay, him State money.
When that statement has been quoted before, I have heard the right hon. Gentleman ask for his further remarks to be quoted. I will take advantage of his invitation, and I will continue to quote from his statement:
If it is said that a person who may have a business or who may have invested money and has an income, is to be maintained for ever after he has run out of benefit for which he has paid, then I do not stand for it and never have stood for it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th November, 1921; column 446, Vol. 259.]

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: There is nothing wrong about that.

Mr. PIKE: No, but the right hon. Gentleman is standing for it now, and he is building a wall round the Opposition over which he is making it impossible for any of his followers in the near future to jump if they believe that it is their duty in the interests of the nation to do so. For 71 years the right hon. Gentleman says that he has stood for this principle. He has stood like a rock for it for 71 years, but he has collapsed against a wave of municipal necessity. It was
never until the means test was likely to become a factor in the municipal elections which have been just fought that hon. Members on the other side declared their intention to have nothing to do with it. In Sheffield, 10 days before the municipal elections, I challenged the leader of the Socialist party to declare that if he were again returned with his party to the council chamber he would refuse to operate the means test and refuse to elect members of his council to the district committees for the purposes of operating it. I challenged him to reply before polling day, but I got no reply. Why did I make the challenge? For six years the Socialist party has been in power in Sheffield and have operated the Poor Law during that time. For one year they operated the means test. They picked the districts which they as councillors actually represented, and they told the Progressive members that if they wanted to go on the public assistance district committees they would have to go to districts which they did not represent as councillors. When we turned them out this month and reverted to sane government, the Progressive party said to the Socialist councillors who had been administering the means test in their own constituencies, "Now you are going to get a taste of your own medicine. You have got to go on to committees outside the constituency you happen to represent." Perhaps it will interest the House if I quote the exact instruction to them. The leader of the Progressive party said:
We feel that it is in the public interest for temptation to be removed from every member of the public assistance committee, any suspicion that might be cast upon them that they were somehow attempting to curry favour by increasing the amount of the relief of certain people in their own wards. We propose that the policy which has been pursued since the Socialists were in power of dispensing relief to their own constituents should definitely stop. What our members have had to do during the time the Socialists have been in power shall be done by all the members of the public assistance committee.
What has happened? The Socialists on the committee, so democratic, so faithful to the leadership given to them in this House of Commons have, like a lot of screaming school children, struck en bloc and refused to act as members of the district committees. Running away seems to be a habit! It is not only a national practice, it is developing in the districts. If anything proves the dishonesty of pur-
pose of the party opposite it is this action. After all, the cases of these people must be dealt with. The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down said they were dying of starvation in some cases, starving for the want of nourishment. Will those people who refused to administer that nourishment come along at the next election and claim that they acted in the interests of starving humanity, or for political purposes directed from Eccleston Square or the Front Bench opposite? If they do not, I consider it will be the duty of Members of this House to do it for them.
I suggest in conclusion that hon. Gentlemen opposite are not honest when they say they are not in favour of a means test. I say that they are wilfully misleading the public in this country into the belief that they will not administer a means test. Is there any one of them who is in favour of £11 or £12 a week, or Le, or £5, or £4, or £3 going into some house and nothing going into some other house? Will they say they are in favour of the house into which £10 a week is going not having its position considered, when next door there is a house with nothing, and when both of them are craving to be maintained from the public purse? They know perfectly well that they will administer a means test, and they know—they dare not admit it—that their application of the means test would be so cruel in its effectiveness against those who are worst off in the community as to make it utterly impossible for them in the future ever to have a chance of getting back to administer that test.
I submit very humbly to hon. Members that if they want to do anything by which this Bill can be made of the greatest possible value in eliminating some of the anomalies of the moment in administration, if they want to encourage the Ministry to go forward at the earliest possible moment with a measure that will still further diminish existing anomalies, they should do their utmost in their constituencies to follow Sheffield's example by refusing to be browbeaten by Socialists who go on strike rather than administer poor relief, and who refuse even to consider their objections and administer it in face of those objections. The motto in this matter should be "Follow Sheffield." Then the Minister's Bill will be of great value not only to
those immediately affected by it but ultimately for dealing with the great problem with which we are confronted.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I cannot be expected to follow the hon. Member for the Attercliffe Division (Mr. Pike), and nobody in this House would expect from me a defence of the official Opposition; nor, indeed, would anyone expect me to defend the discipline of the Labour party, seeing that I have been, possibly, one of the worst sufferers under it. I would like, however, to say one or two words about two statements which the hon. Member for Attercliffe made. He was the only Member of the House, save one, who urged the Government to be even more reactionary than they are. When he insisted that men should not be allowed to leave their own home, and urged that the liberty of the individual to stay where he liked ought to be curtailed, I felt that he must claim the distinction of wanting to have not only a means test for the family but wanting to curtail the liberty of movement of a man because there were unemployed relatives living in the same house.

Mr. PIKE: I am sure the hon. Member does not want to misrepresent what I said. I admitted that the operation of the Bill did tend to break up the family, as has been alleged, but what interested me was the fact that as the law existed it created a temptation rather than a compulsion.

Mr. BUCHANAN: But the hon. Member said more. He said that a man left home and got public money because he left, and another man did not leave home and therefore did not get public money, and then he said, "Take action." Therefore, it meant obviously that the man who left home was to have his rights and his liberty curtailed.

Mr. PIKE: I meant that the Minister should take action to remove the anomalies of the position. If we are going to punish a man for stopping at home, then the Minister should do something by way of making the position of the two men at least equal.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Let me go over again what the hon. Member said. Suppose there are two sons living at home and one leaves home and gets benefit
and one stays at home and does not. He says that some action must be taken to see that the two are treated alike, and I say to him, "Therefore you propose to stop the man who wants to from leaving home." He says: "No, I do not want to do that." What does he intend to do? What he intends is that if a man is unemployed and lives in a home with an unemployed family he is not to be allowed to go out of the home. [Interruption.] Yes, that is what he meant. He said things about the Labour party, but let us go over what he said and what he wants. [Interruption.] Do not try to slip away from what you mean, like the Labour party. What did he say? We all heard it. He said a man got the benefit if he left the home and did not get it if he remained in the home, and. that some action should be taken to stop that man from getting public money. What other means can you take? [Interruption.] I have already given way for one or two questions, and I will give way again, but I want Mr. Speaker to take notice of this. The hon. Member said some action should be taken. What action does he intend should be taken? There are only two kinds of action that you can take. One is to stop the man from leaving, and the other is to give him nothing because he left. [Interruption.] Well, if there is a third, let us have it.

Mr. PIKE: The other is to give equal benefits for stopping or going.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Equal benefits. That means that if he were getting nothing at home he will get nothing if he leaves home. Therefore it means, if you give him nothing, that his right to leave the home and to go to search for work elsewhere would be at once curtailed. After all this twisting and wriggling we have got to this position—that you must curtail the liberty of the man. The hon. Member would not pass a law to prevent the man leaving home, but he would say, "If you leave home you get nothing." That is harsher law than sentencing him to 60 days imprisonment, because you are saying to him, "You will have to starve."
The other point made by the hon. Member which thoroughly amazed me was his constant reference to the people tell-
ing lies. I think I can claim justly, and no Conservative on the Treasury Bench will deny it, that I work in my division. I do not say it egotistically, but I claim that I do more work in my division than does any other Member in this House, and not only I, but my wife. It is one of the poorest divisions in Scotland and, indeed, in the whole country. I have never been absent more than 10 days from my division in the 10 years that I have been in Parliament. I go down there night after night. What amazes me is the few lies I am told. I may have been told a lie, but all this talk about the people telling lies is grossly exaggerated. There was another statement made by the hon. Member which I could not understand. He talked about a mother with two sons, each of whom was earning 25s., but who did not tell the mother what they earned. If they are applying for transitional benefit—the mother or any one of them—they have got to tell the mother, and I could not see the point of the hon. Member's remarks. If they do not tell what they earn it will be found out in 10 minutes. The transitional benefit people will find it out from any firm in the country.
6.0 p.m.
Having dealt with those points I come now to the Bill itself. Yesterday there was a great conflict between the hon. Member for the Gower Division (Mr. D. Grenfell) and the Minister of Health. I cannot understand why the Government should have been so indignant at the criticism by the hon. Member for the Gower Division. What does the Bill do? It says in effect that 50 per cent. of an ex-service man's disability pension or of an award made to a workman under the Workmen's Compensation Acts shall be ignored when considering his means. The local authority must not ignore less than 50 per cent., but, equally, they must not ignore more than 50 per cent., taking those people as a class. They must not say that all the people in Glasgow, for example, who have disability pensions and are applying for transitional benefit are to have more than 50 per cent. of their pension ignored. What they can do is to ignore more than 50 per cent. in the case of individual applicants where there are special circumstances arising from illness or any other good reason. They may go beyond the 50 per cent. in the case of individuals, but cannot do it in the case of a whole class of people.
I think that is clear. What was the point made by the hon. Member for the Gower Division which caused annoyance? The hon. Member for Gower said, quite rightly, that there are public assistance committees who are granting more than 50 per cent. to applicants as a class, and that for those, who do that, this Bill would therefore make the position infinitely worse. We get to the point where he says—

Orders of the Day — ROYAL ASSENT.

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.

The House went; and, having re-turned—

MR. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

1. Ottawa Agreements Act, 1932.
2. Falkirk and District Traction Order Confirmation Act, 1932.
3. Edinburgh Royal Maternity and Simpson Memorial Hospital Order Confirmation Act, 1932.
4. Macduff Harbour Order Confirmation Act, 1932.
5. Aberdeen Harbour Order Confirmation Act, 1932.

Orders of the Day — TRANSITIONAL PAYMENTS (DETERMINATION OF NEED) BILL.

Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

Mr. BUCHANAN: I was putting the point in regard to what the Bill means. It is clear that we ought to know what the Bill actually means. What in effect was the duel that the Minister of Health had with the hon. Member for Gower? The Minister of Health said that the hon. Member for Gower stated that the Bill would make the position worse; that that was a misuse of language, and was not fair to the Government. I propose, as calmly and quietly as I can, to say that that view is wrong arid that the position is going to be made infinitely worse by this Bill in many cases. I asked, what does the Bill mean? It means that no public assistance committee can go beyond its provisions in dealing with applicants as a class. They can, in individual
cases, give more, but in those individual cases it must be shown that there are extra circumstances that differentiate them from others.
Consider the administration. There are Labour authorities which allow 75 per cent. of the pension. Others allow 100 per cent. There are some that are not Labour authorities that give more than this Bill will allow. I had a conversation with the Minister of Labour, and he said that one of the best administered public assistance committees from the official point of view was that in the city of Glasgow. He said that he had had less trouble in the city of Glasgow than in most places. I disagreed with him, but that is his view. Even in Glasgow, the position is going to be worse. There, if a man has a 60 per cent. pension, he is given 40 per cent. of his transitional benefit. If he has a 50 per cent. pension, he is given 50 per cent. If he has a 40 per cent. pension, he is allowed 60 per cent. If he has a 20 per cent. pension he is allowed 80 per cent. of his benefit. The result is that it works out to an average of five-eighths. The man is one-eighth better off than he will be when this Bill comes into operation. On that public assistance committee there is a Conservative majority.
In addition to that, they have found that from an administrative point of view it is good business to fix a minimum for a pension, so they have fixed a minimum of 5s. A man with a 4s. 6d. disability pension gets the whole lot; that is done not merely out of sympathy with the man, but because the authority find that administratively it is hardly worth while making inquiries into the details. What is to happen now? It he has 6s., he gets 5s. now, but under the Bill he can only get 3s., because, as a class, everyone cannot be given 5s.; it must be 50 per cent. The consequence is that in the second city of the Empire—I mean as regards size; I am in constant disagreement with others as to which is the first city in the Empire—with a population of 1,100,000, the disability pensioners will, in my view, be definitely worse off, and not better. The Glasgow Corporation have followed the practice I have indicated, not with regard to classes, but fairly universally, and they will not be allowed to do that under this Bill. With regard to savings,
in the case of a married man with a family—not if the man is single—the first £100 is exempt if they think he has saved the money in order to provide a better education for his child, or, again, if he is nearing the age of 65, and has saved some money to keep him from going to the Poor Law when he qualifies for an old age pension. In that case also they exempt the first £100, and thereafter, up to £500, only take into account the interest.
Those conditions must be made worse under this Bill, and yet the Minister of Health gets into a white heat of indignation because the hon. Member for Gower says that things will become worse. In the City of Glasgow matters will be worse than in Edinburgh as regards disability pensions. So far from the Bill making any concession, it really makes no concession at all; indeed, in my view, it will make the position worse; and yet we are asked not to vote against it. Taking the populations of Glasgow and Edinburgh together, it will make matters worse for well over 1,500,000 people, and yet we are told that it will make things better. That is a kind of logic that one cannot be expected to follow.
I want to raise another question, on which I hope I may get a reply, with regard to administration. The family income has been a subject of discussion in this House, and I want to give a typical example, not by way of erecting a dummy to be knocked down by myself, but in order to base my case on reason. In my native city, which is not badly administered, you have a man, his wife and one child, plus a son who is working. The father is on transitional benefit. The son earns £2 per week. The son is allowed 15s. for himself; that is not taken into account; and thus, if there is a child with the mother and father, the father is entitled to 3d. per week. I would point out that the 15s. allowed to the son has to cover health and unemployment insurance, which amount to 1s. 8d. That reduces the 15s. to 13s. 4d. Again, he would have car fares to pay, amounting to, say, 3s., which would further reduce it to 10s. 4d., and if he is a member of a trade union his subscription will still further reduce the amount. Therefore, it is no exaggeration to say that he is left
with 10s. a week for every form of activity. That is not all. What guarantee is there that the man gives the 25s. to his mother and father?
There is no guarantee that be goes home and gives them the money, and they have no legal power to compel him to give it. It is said that there is no starvation, but the position is that the man may not give up the 25s.; in fact, he might not be in a position to do so. I have known a case in which the son, before the father went on to transitional benefit, entered into certain commitments which did not allow of his giving up the money. The result is that the woman is credited with an income which is not legally guaranteed to her. If the son is out of the house, she is legally guaranteed 25s. 3d. That is a very important and valuable point. I ask the Minister what legal guarantee is given to the mother and father? It is said that in this country, under the Poor Law, every man, woman and child is guaranteed an income, but in a case such as I have mentioned, when the son stays at home, the income is not guaranteed; it is left to mutual good will, and that is all. I should like an answer from the Minister to-day as to the actual position that he takes up. He will probably say that, if the son does not care to give up the money, that is all right, but the question is not whether the son gives the money or not; you have a duty to the mother and father, apart from the son.
I hope I may be allowed to say a word about the statement of the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies). I could hardly credit it when I heard of it, but I have read it. One thing which has annoyed me very much in this House has been the constant reiteration of statements as to the poor telling lies; and another thing that annoyed me was the reference made by one hon. Member to "soup-kitchen politics." I think it is shocking, in a matter like this, to attempt to get at poor people by references which in themselves bear the most callous inferences that can be drawn, and I think that a man who talks like that from the Front Bench of a Labour party has no place in working-class politics at all.
There has been a good deal of discussion in the House about the paragraph
dealing with the Poor Law, and one hon. Member—the hon. and learned Member for Maryhill (Mr. Jamieson)—wanted the Government to be even more reactionary than they are. I should like to deal with the point of view of the hon. and learned Member, although this is not, comparatively speaking, a national issue. The City of Glasgow say that they want the whole of the disability pension to be exempt, and they send a deputation to impress the views of the corporation on Members of Parliament. I am with them in their demand for the exclusion of 100 per cent., or any percentage, of a disability pension, but I wish, when they are spending the ratepayers' money on sending deputations here, they would at least have some regard for the decencies of public life. If they want generous treatment, they must themselves use the powers which Parliament has given to then of being generous to the people; and yet we have the corporation of Glasgow coming here and demanding more generous treatment while they themselves will not operate an Act of Parliament.
I want the Minister to give me a reply on another point also. The National Health Insurance Act says that the first 7s. 6d. must be exempt. That law may be good or it may be bad, but it is the law, and it, should be carried out so long as it remains the law. The City of Glasgow and its chief officials have, however, defied the law. Glamorgan has defied the law. Rotherham has defied the law, and now it is being frightened with inspectors. In West Ham also the same thing has happened. Glasgow defies the law, but it defies the law the other way—it takes the 7s. 6d. from the poor; and the Minister says that Glasgow is allowed to do that. I want some kind of fairness. I do not ask Tories to become Socialists, 'out Ministers constantly stand at that Box and say, "We are responsible for carrying out the law." We used to hear that from Labour Ministers until it almost made me vomit, if I may be pardoned for using such a vulgar expression. When we asked about test work, we were told, "It is the law, and, unfortunately, one must carry out the law." I say that this exemption under the National Health Insurance Act is the law. Why is it not being carried out?
6.30 p.m.
With regard to the Bill itself, the issue that hon. Members have to keep before them is this: The Bill is introduced for the purpose of benefiting three classes of people, and we have to make up our minds as to whether, in the main, it is going to mean a material step forward for the great mass of the people, and whether its rejection will mean worse conditions for the great mass of the people. I say to the House of Commons that this Bill definitely marks a step backwards in many parts of the country; it definitely means worse conditions. I say, further, that, if this Measure be rejected, it will not mean that the Government can do nothing. Hon. Members who are acquainted with Parliamentary procedure know that the only way to get a Vote increased is to move a reduction of £100. If this Bill is rejected, it will be a direct instruction to the Government to bring in another Bill to deal with the problem in a much more, generous fashion. The Bill proposes to give Poor Law authorities the right to apply the same conditions to Poor Law applicants. They have joined in chorus that they will not give that power because it means higher rates. In the terms of this concession it would mean a few miserable pence, and they are not to be allowed to do it. The hon. and learned Member for South Nottingham (Mr. Knight) joins them. What the Labour and Independent Labour party members of the Glasgow Corporation were thinking when they sent a deputation here to demand that they should spend less on the poor, I cannot understand.

Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT: I said that this extension would involve an additional charge on municipalities. The Nottingham Corporation was concerned about the additional charge, and asked that the Government should give some help to meet it.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I am sorry if I misrepresented the hon. and learned Gentleman, but the Glasgow Corporation people demanded that they should not go on with it at all. The one bit of the Bill that I thought of value, which gives power to get these people treated in an equitable fashion, is the one part that the Glasgow Corporation have demanded not to have. I do not deny, as the hon. and gallant Member for Montrose (Lieut.-
Colonel Kerr) said, that many unemployed were in favour of the means test at the last election, because men who were out of work saw that, if they shoved off the married woman and the women in seasonal work, their benefit would be secure. That is the case that I made against the Anomalies Act. A large mass of the unemployed, thinking they could secure their benefit, were prepared to put the other people off. It was a natural thing, and men faced with poverty, as they are, will do the natural thing. They see what they think less deserving people getting benefit. Just as you get that crowd shoved off, another section, seeing their benefit in jeopardy, see someone else less deserving, and they join to shove him off. Men with no children, or those who are outside the family income under the means test, say, "We know families with £10 a week. Put them off. It would not be natural or human if they did not.
But that form of appeal, I think, is wrong. The whole basis of either the individual or the family means test is wrong. If you appeal to the base feelings of anyone, you can always get a hearty and full response. But, while the Government can quote some people who are unemployed who demanded it, they have to face the position that this means test is playing havoc. On Saturday I travelled home to my division, and, sitting in the carriage beside me, was a full grown man who, I should think, had won a great distinction in the War, and who cried as he read about the mining disaster. I think he must have been through terrible sufferings in the War. I hope I shall not be accused of being callous, but I did not feel so awfully sorry. I feel sorry for men who die by a slow, painful process. Their death was not painful in that sense. It was quick, it was sudden, it was a call, when it came, not without a certain form of glory in the sense that they were serving their fellow-workers in digging for coal, which is the lifeblood of the people.
Those who stand at the Employment Exchanges die in the most painful fashion that I know. You kill them not merely by depriving them of food, clothing and shelter. You kill them by a mental process which is more cruel than any physical process. Recently I saw women in Glas-
gow making arrangements about their rent. The next month broke the arrangement and the women are dying. Mental worry is destroying them. A. wife-beater does not inflict half the injury on his wife that a man who goes with other women inflicts. The mind kills them quicker than anything else. It is one of the awful things in city life to see the mothers of bairns, instead of being, comparatively speaking, free to develop the family life, being smashed. There are people going down, down, down, and you just let them die. It would be much more humane to go out and kill them than to allow them to die in the way they are doing.
This Bill represents to us no advance at all. I ask the House to reject it. If they do, it will not mean that the unemployed will be worse treated. The only way the House of Commons can show its disapproval of the Measure and instruct the Government; to go ahead and give more generous treatment is to reject the Bill. Many hon. Members opposite came here with great ideals. They have found, as I have found, that the party machine has beaten them. There are decent men in the House who hate this Bill as much as I do, and who see that there is hardly anything good in it, but the machine has got them beaten. The machine always beats us. But they have less excuse for it than we. They are men with incomes who can defy the machine, whereas poor men cannot. There is a grave responsibility on supporters of the Government. Let them make up their minds now and vote against the Measure. It will be taken by the Government as a definite instruction that they must deal with human beings in a more generous manner than they propose now.

Mr. HICKS: I am sure that Members who have listened to the Debate cannot be unimpressed by the tragedy of human life reflected in the speeches that have been made, particularly from this side. I had hoped that the Debate we had last week on the general problem of unemployment and the tragedy behind that unemployment would have created a better understanding of who these people are. There is, I feel sure, a great underrating of the problem and an insufficient understanding of the types of people who are receiving transitional payments.
They are from all walks of life, from every calling, just ordinary human beings like ourselves. They are victims of the economic welter and chaos. They are anxious to find employment. They have been thrown into the position of having to ask for Unemployment Benefit, and then for transitional payment. I had hoped that we should approach the matter from a different angle. The occupants of the Treasury Bench have their heads buried in the national ledger with their eyes upon the figures. I wish that they would look up from the figures upon which they are so constantly glancing down and try to see the problem which confronts them, and the wretchedness, misery and sadness associated with millions of their fellow-countrymen. They should ask themselves whether they are tackling the problem in the right way by granting concessions here and there. I feel pretty certain that we are going on the old lines of trying to regard the people who are unemployed as a sort of class below us, a subnormal class of the community who are not wanted, hoping that they will go down into the shades and shadows and gradually slide out. We are not regarding them as human beings and asking ourselves what should be our responsibilities as national representatives.
Suggestions for relief and for more generous administration have been made in abundance by Members on this side of the House. I have listened to most of the speeches—and those which I have not heard I have read in the meantime—of hon. Members who have pointed out how handicapped unemployed men and women really are and the standard of life which obtains in the homes of these people. What a low miserable standard it is! It is below workhouse and prison fare, and lower than any expert in poverty would say was necessary. This sort of thing is regarded as being right: the standard should be kept down to the barest possible minimum. You look at the national ledger and try to terrify people about the necessity for balancing this or balancing the other, and for looking after their savings. The Government have looked after the savings all right. The workers have no savings now, because they are being compelled to withdraw them for the purpose of supplementing the transitional payment. There is a fundamental question here which, in truly
reflecting the desires and position of our people, we, ought thoroughly to understand. The Chairman laid down the conditions for the Debate on the Financial Resolution when he said:
I hope I made it clear that the question of what being in need means is fully within the limits of discussion."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th November, 1932; col. 349, Vol. 270.]
What do hon. Members mean by "being in need"? Has any one made an inquiry as to what being in need means? It is possible, I believe, without selecting any street, to go from this House, make inquiries in the immediate neighbourhood and to find that every house is full of needs of all sorts. Those households would be able to establish their needs as human beings and to justify a standard below which all would agree that they should not be compelled to exist. The fundamental issue is whether these men, women and children have a right to live as human beings. Do the Government and hon. Members opposite agree that they should have the right to live as human beings? If so, certainly the contribution which we are making towards that end falls very far short of what it should be. A fearful misfortune has come upon ordinary, decent people. How can we treat this misfortune? It is terribly obvious to me that the Government do not conceive that these people have the right to live in normal human circumstances, have ordinary meals, clothe themselves decently, enjoy ordinary recreation and possess proper housing accommodation. We have the knowledge, the money and everything necessary, apart from the will, to provide those amenities. Why are we tinkering with the problem by trying to cut down this and to cheesepare that? How can hon. Members say that they are making a great contribution to the solution of the problem? It is like dropping a crumb to Lazarus. This sort of tinkering will create conditions which will rebound upon the Government or whoever is responsible in greater volume, and compel them to readjust their views in regard to the matter.
The hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. Pike) was speaking some time ago about cant, humbug and hypocricy. I do not think that there is much difference in this cold, deliberate and calculated policy to discover every petty trick, artifice,
manoeuvre and excuse for establishing conditions under which it is impossible for these people to live. There is no desire on the part of the public assistance committees, or of those who go out to inquire, how much help them can give to these people, except to pry into every little cranny and corner to try to discover how much they are able to compel them to do without. I believe that it represents the policy of the Government to economise at the expense of the wretchedness and poverty of those people, and to press them still lower. Fancy applying the means test to a person who has received 26 weeks of unemployment benefit, and then has to apply for transitional payments! Surely, after having six months' unemployment the overwhelming majority of the people are in such parlous and dire straits that to apply the means test to them is absolutely mean, petty, vexatious and farcical.
I am speaking upon the general condition of these people and not in regard to the cases so disproportionately dilated upon by some hon. Members of this House and sometimes by Ministers. The plight of widows and orphans is usually trotted out when they are speaking about limiting armament firms and things of that kind. Everyone knows how disproportionate such illustrations are in comparison with the realities of the situation. The Minister of Labour has spoken about the £1,000 people, and so on. How ridiculous it is to apply that sort of thing when millions of people are unemployed. The putting of the application of the means test into the hands of public assistance committees means that all Britishers who have received Unemployment Benefit and then have to apply for transitional payment must have the whole of their lives inquired into. I said some time ago in this House that the Englishman's home is no longer his castle. It is becoming the camping-ground of Bumble. It is the camping-ground of Bumble, who is prying into every bit of his life. How many £1,000 people are there? It is ridiculous to use such an illustration when we are seriously discussing the fate and the conditions of millions of our fellow-countrymen.
I also felt a sense of cant in the statement of the Minister of Labour when he referred to the agricultural worker as having to pay taxes through his little luxuries such as tobacco and beer. What have the Tories done for the agricultural labourer apart from trying to keep those luxuries from him? How totally disproportionate and unreal are illustrations of that sort. They are debating points for summer schools, and not for a serious Debate in the House of Commons. It strikes me also as being very mean to apply the means test when we consider that the ordinary workman, through being compelled to keep other members of the family, will have very little at any time to put by for a rainy day. It is farcical to call this a needs test under such conditions. Not one in a thousand who has been subjected to the test is left with means to satisfy his needs. The needs test is not an inquiry to find out the needs of the people in order to satisfy them, but to find out the need's of the people in order to deny them satisfaction. The Bill touches comparatively few persons as far as the concessions are concerned. What is the, proportion of disabled ex-service men and workmen in receipt of workmen's compensation on transitional payment? It is very infinitesimal compared with the millions of people who are unemployed. These cases are a small minority.
7.0 p.m.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) the other day criticised the finances of the Measure, particularly in regard to the question of deducting 1s. per week in respect of each £25 after the first £25. They work the percentage out at 9½. I hope the Shylock conception of this Government will be understood by the people of this country. It is a sort of moneylender's squeeze with a vengeance or, rather, a pound of flesh from the most defenceless people of our land. They are robbed of the agencies and means of defending themselves. They have nothing to defend themselves with, apart from their desire to have a better life, and their appeal to the better feelings of their fellow countrymen. I think it is time we hung three brass balls over Downing Street.
One great factor is being overlooked, namely, the savings of the people in the trade unions. The trade unions, long before the Government thought of the matter, set about trying to provide assistance to their members when they were unemployed, or when they suffered from sickness or old age. Month by month, week by week, people have paid their contributions into the funds of trade unions so that they might be assisted in dark and difficult days. They were expecting to receive from their trade unions some financial supplement to the State benefit. That is denied to those who are on transitional payment. If a trade union to-day decides that any member in receipt of transitional payment shall have unemployment pay, then the Government, or the public assistance committee take into consideration the amount of the payment by the trade union and reduce the amount of public assistance proportionately. I say that the trade union contributions are as much savings as if a man had £25 and less than £50. You have just as much right to excuse the supplemental contributions of the trade unions to a man who is unemployed as you have to excuse savings of £25 and less than £50. I strongly assert that the Government have done trade unions an injustice in this case, and they have done an injustice to the unemployed people as well.
If time permitted, there is an enormous amount I could say on the general question of the demoralisation which has resulted from this means test. The hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. Briant), I think, put the case very well. He said:
As long as public assistance committees are laying down, as they are in some cases, a completely false standard of life which is not fit for any human being, it is not only a hardship to the particular family, but it means that the State will in future rue its action by reason of the demoralised families which will grow up, and by reason of the physical deterioration which will affect the next generation."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 9th November, 1932; col. 373, Vol. 270.]
There is also the conference of clergy called at the request of parish priests in all parts of the country at The Hayes, Swanwick, on 4th to 7th October. It dealt with the question of unemployment. The Minister who is going to reply knows as well as I do that public assistance committees, councils, churches, and every body of people closely associated, or connected, with the unemployed have sent
their protests against the means test. The volume of these protests is mounting up, and that shows we are not tackling the problem in the proper way.
I would like to say this on behalf of London—this wealthiest city of the Empire. There are present members of the London County Council who have control over the public assistance committees in London. The agreed scale of payment, which is not written or printed but is tacitly understood in London, amounts, when rent is taken out, to 8s. for an adult person. They are granted 8s. in this the greatest and wealthiest city in the Empire. But these public assistance committees are taking into their calculations meals received by little children. These meals are received because the children's parents are not able to find employment. The children are compelled to have meals at the schools, or the teaching would be wasted. Here in the greatest city in the Empire these committees take into account the value of the children's meals in order to make a deduction from what they are allowing to the parents. That is mean and contemptible. No one with any soul can give support to any such abuse of power. Is it a wonder that our people loathe the vile business of the means test. It is so abominable in its requirements that it is causing revolt in the mind, spirit and feeling of the people of the country. It is cold, calculated and brutal starvation.
I often wonder what is the value of words. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear hear."] I am glad same hon. Members are awake and listening to my words. If it is true, as people are telling us, that there is a standard of life below which people ought not to be allowed to sink, if they are to be kept from starvation, and if as a result of the application of our policy we are allowing them to sink below that level, what is that if not slow starvation. Does it not mean social assassination? What is the value of words if you know that below a certain standard of life means starvation and you allow people to remain below that standard? I remember the old story of Napoleon. A man went to him and told him he had lost his pension. He said to Napoleon, "Sire, I have lost my pension." Napoleon said: "Well." The man answered: "I must live," and Napoleon is reported to have said: "I do not see the necessity." Just as
Napoleon may have said that to the pensioner, I am saying to the Government that they do not see the necessity for the unemployed living or, otherwise, they would take steps to maintain them.
Just one word on the question of the Income Tax. On this question of the Income Tax it is said you should not have a means test. There is nothing comparable between Income Tax and the means test. Does anyone say you are cheats and liars when you fill in your Income Tax form? As one of the Members for a Sheffield division has said, these committees are able to find out the amount of money applicants are earning. They go round to the factory and workshop. That is a thing which ought to be stopped. I have in mind now an instance in the district where I live. A man tried to give his children an education better than he had had himself. One of his children got work of a confidential nature. The man applied for transitional payment. The committee went to the firm where that child, a girl, was employed. She was discharged because the firm expected a girl from a different class of home. Do they do the same with regard to Income Tax? I make bold to say that for every penny out of which you have been cheated by unemployed workmen you have been cheated out of £1 in Income Tax. The whole thing is indefensible. I am asking Members of the House of Commons of all parties, and the Government, to let us get above this tinkering. Why should we not tackle this question in the atmosphere of the Debate of last week? The Minister of Labour is helpless, and I am not blaming the hon. Member who is to reply. It is something larger than one Department, and it is something which the Government have to take in hand. That is why we are demanding the withdrawal or defeat of this Bill.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. R. S. Hudson): The hon. Member who has just spoken made an appeal that this Debate should be continued in a spirit which would recapture that which permeated the House in the Debate on unemployment last week. It is a pity he did not address that remark to some of his followers earlier in the day, more especially the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks). I am going to try, if the House
will allow me, to put before it some rather wider considerations. This Debate has turned much more on the question of whether there should be a means test at all than on any other matter. That raises issues which are really fundamental to the unemployment insurance system and, possibly, to the whole future structure of our society. If the House will permit me, I would suggest one or two considerations which, it seems to me, have to be taken into account.
I do not know if the Labour party accept the proposals of the Trades Union Congress put before the Royal Commission, but I imagine they will agree with them as a whole. That scheme is the only alternative worked out in any detail. It is framed on the basis that a man should he guaranteed either work or maintenance and that there should be no means test. Both of these, I understand, are planks in the Labour party platform. The Trades Union Congress proposal proceeds on the assumption that the insurance principle has broken down. We do not admit it. It goes on to suggest that the insurance scheme should be supplanted by a fund the resources of which would be drawn almost solely from the Exchequer. Out of that fund would be paid adequate allowances, without any inquiry into the recipient's resources, for as long as it might be necessary, to every single person who, being willing to work, was not able to find a wage-earning place in industry. The Majority Report of the Royal Commission pointed out that that involves three new elements. In the first place, it enormously extends State responsibility. In the second place, it shifts the responsibility from the local authority to the central authority, and in the third place it scraps the whole of our existing system and methods. It is based on the theory that unless the community so organises industry that every man willing to work can get a job, the unemployed, as the reserves of industry, are entitled to full maintenance. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I am glad to hear those cheers from hon. Members opposite, because it shows that I am not in any way twisting their views. The idea that the State should so organise industry is completely alien to our present social system. Therefore, so far as the
immediate present is concerned, the trade union argument founded on that basis fails to the ground.
What I want to show to the House, and what I want to try to bring home to the Labour party is where that theory leads. The Labour party must realise that to make effective a system such as I have just outlined, involves State control in the most detailed fashion over the whole of industry, and also control over the individual recruitment of individuals by industry. The Royal Commission realised that when they said that the principle of "payment for loss of employment only," could be accepted and applied only in a society where State control of industry was virtually complete and where State control extended also to the determination of what wages each, individual was to receive. They added that without the active exercise of such powers of intervention and prescription the profession of mere "willingness to work" was practically meaningless. I do not know whether the Labour party would agree to that.

Mr. LANSBURY: Of course, we would not. Why should we?

Mr. HUDSON: I do not imagine that the Members of the left wing of the Labour party would deny that that is where their policy logically leads. But that is not the end. Where does the doctrine lead? We have been criticised to-day over the principle of household means. We are told that it is breaking up homes, that family ties are less strong to-day than they were of old, that the young men and the young women to-day feel less responsibility towards their parents, and that they regard it as a hardship, as morally degrading, indeed the hon. Member for Broxtowe said that it was obscene, to ask a son to support his father.

Mr. COCKS: I did not say that.

Mr. HUDSON: We are being asked to admit that there is something inherently wrong in asking a son to support his father, but that there is nothing inherently wrong in asking someone else's son to support him. We are told that that represents the modern tendencies of the world. That may be true. It may represent the modern tendencies,
but it does not in the least follow that those tendencies are sound, and it does not in the least follow that, if the State is to survive, it must accept those tendencies, much less give them legislative sanction. Since the days of Elizabeth, and even earlier, the State has recognised the duty to relieve destitution, but we are asked to-day to go very much further. We are asked to provide full and adequate maintenance. One hon. Member opposite, I think it was the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) went further and said that they should be kept in comfort. There might have been something to be said for that doctrine in the early days of the industrial revolution, when the Manchester laissez faire doctrine was in full force. What the industrialist wanted then was rapid increase of population, more women and children to man his factories and his mines. Those were the days of expanding markets, when the waste places of the United States and our Dominions were calling for population.
Those were the days when there was an outlet for the surplus population and the problem at home was comparatively small and easy to deal with, There was a great deal to be said in ethics for the theory that a community which had benefited by the rapid increase of population and of wealth should be asked to succour those who fell by the wayside. It was the fact that in the opinion of many people that succour was not adequate, that led to the great increase in the social services which we enjoy to-day. The increase in those social services has brought with it a definite weakening of the sense of individual responsibility, and we are paying for that to-day, at, a time when the fundamental condition of England has completely changed. To-day, instead of having expanding markets, we have contracting markets. Instead of having an outlet for our surplus population in emigration we have actually this year to face the fact that there has been a net immigration into this country.
In such conditions as those with which we are faced to-day the demand that is implicit in the theory of hon. Members opposite means not merely that the State would have to control every detail of industry, to control wages and also control the individual recruitment of industry, but it would be driven to control
also the numbers engaged in industry and ultimately to interfere in the most intimate details of family life. The conclusion seems to me to be absolutely inescapable, that once the State had started upon that path, it could not stop and say: "Thus far and no farther." It would have to take one step after another, and the last step would be that it would have to control the size and number of the working man's family. That is what you will be inevitably driven to. I do not believe that such a step is conceivable, that such control by the State is conceivable in any future that matters to us. [Interruption.] I am trying to deal with the matter as quickly as I can. For this reason alone it is perfectly clear that if the Labour Government came into office to-morrow they would be unable to dispense either with the means test or with the principle of the household income.
I wonder very much whether there is all this objection to the principle of the household income that hon. Members opposite have made so much song about in the Debate. If there is any complaint of individual cases I think it is very largely due not to the inherent principle but to faulty administration. In actual fact members of a family living under the same roof do share their fortune, and they do not disclaim responsibility for each other. We do know of other cases and I certainly know of a particular town in which families have exchanged their grown-up children, in which they have taken each other in as lodgers. It is part of a concerted and deliberate action. No one in that town pretends that it is honest action. They admit that it is fraudulent and in some cases it-has been dealt with. To a local opinion that supports that line of action, no concession on our part is necessary.
There is, however, the other side of the picture. I think that everyone in the House will agree with me that if a man works he is entitled to expect at the end of the week that he shall have some portion of the money that he gets for that work absolutely at his own disposal, and if every penny is treated as available for the purpose of household income, he is legitimately resentful. I doubt whether there is any single local authority in the country that enforces such a
rule at the present time, but if there is such a local authority it ought at once to change its methods. So far as the experience of 12 months working of the scheme goes, I believe that it is quite possible to produce workable rules which will be generally acceptable. I have already referred in the speech that I made last Wednesday to the recommendations of the Royal Commission on this matter.
May I deal with two or three points which were raised by individual Members during the Debate. I will deal first with the speech of the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell). The Minister of Health answered most of his points. The hon. Member will not think me discourteous if I suggest that the real criticism of what he said was two-fold, first, that he did not take the trouble to read what I said last Wednesday in winding up the Debate on the Financial Resolution—I have no grounds for suggesting that he ought to have read it—and, secondly, that he had' not read the Bill. We are entitled to criticise him for that. As an illustration of the way in which he did not trouble to read the Bill, let me take a specific instance which he gave of a man with a house worth £350. If I understood him aright he said that man would be deprived of transitional payment because the £350 was above the limit of £300. There is a Clause in the Bill, which was put in for the specific purpose of preventing a local authority from telling a man to sell or mortgage his house. Therefore, the point made by the hon. Member is wholly without foundation.

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: That is only if he lives in the house.

Mr. HUDSON: If he owns the house and does not live in it and gets income from the house, the income is taken into account.

Mr. GRENFELL: The hon. Member has challenged me. I say that if you do not take the income you take the capital value of the house.

Mr. HUDSON: I will deal with the telegram that was read by the hon. Member. He suggested that the telegram from Dundee was an attack on the means test. There was no reference to the means test in that telegram. All that the local authority referred to were the
basic scales of transitional payments. Those scales are the same as those for unemployment benefit. Therefore, the telegram had nothing whatever to do with the Debate. He said that the results of the administration were harsh, and that the percentage of people whose claims were disallowed when they came up for consideration the second time was greater than the percentage when the claims first came under consideration. Exactly the opposite is true. The percentage of full determinations for men is 50 in the case of the first determination and 57 in the case of renewals. Therefore, far from what the hon. Member said being in accordance with the facts, exactly the opposite is true.
7.30 p.m.
The hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Parkinson) and several other hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan), had a good deal to say about disability pensions, and asked that I should make the matter clear. I cannot make the matter any clearer than I made it on Wednesday night, but it will perhaps help hon. Members opposite to understand what this Bill really does if they will remember what the present situation is. At present any general rule to disregard the whole, or indeed any specific proportion, of pension or compensation irrespective of the needs of the individual is illegal. What the Bill does is to make mandatory and imperative a rule on all local authorities to disregard 50 per cent. of pension and compensation in all cases. As regards the remaining 50 per cent., no rule to disregard the whole of disability pensions or workmen's compensation irrespective of needs is legal now or will be legal when the Bill is passed. All such flat rules in the administration of a discretionary service which must be based on varying individual circumstances defeat their own end. They either go too far or not far enough. But, transcending all rules, is the duty of an authority to consider needs, and there is really no legal limit to the exercise of their discretion if based upon the consideration of the needs and resources of each individual case. In the case of disabled men there is a presumption of need beyond the ordinary requirements of maintenance, and where this presumption is supported by facts the committee can act accordingly. Time is
getting on, and I will not therefore attempt to deal fully with some of the points which have been made during the course of the Debate.
Let me turn finally to the objection which is felt by great numbers of the unemployed to a means test owing to its association with the Poor Law. I think that there is a great deal of truth in the assertion that one of the main objections felt by the unemployed man to the means test is its association under present circumstances with the old stigma of the Poor Law. I have read and re-read with great care the evidence submitted on this point to the Royal Commission. It must be remembered that this evidence was given for the most part before last November. On balance it indicated that very largely as a result of recent reforms and more especially of the 1929 Act, the old stigma had tended to disappear. Our experience of the last 12 months shows pretty clearly that that evidence was wrong, and it is quite clear that, although in some areas frequent resort to the Poor Law has in fact tended to remove the old feeling of disgrace which attaches to anyone applying for relief from public funds, nevertheless, taking the country as a whole, the old distaste for the Poor Law remains; and I am not sure that it is not a good thing that it should remain.
My right hon. Friend and I have always insisted that it was only the emergency of last year, and the impossibility of devising any alternative machinery in the time at our disposal, which led to the issue of the Order-in-Council of 7th October, 1931. We have always insisted that these were purely temporary measures to last until the Royal Commission's Report was received, and until we could get through this House a wide and comprehensive Bill dealing with the whole matter. The Royal Commission have taken two years over their report and the House will hardly expect me to say whether we are going to accept the scheme they propose or some other scheme. What I can say is that the House may be sure that this matter is under our immediate discussion and that no avoidable time will be lost in the development of the new scheme and in its presentation to Parliament. Finally, I suggest to the House that the
Bill itself is only a temporary Measure. It does very much more than hon. Members opposite are willing to admit. It confers valuable privileges on disabled men, whether they have incurred the disability in war or in industry, and it does safeguard the small savings of the people. Therefore I confidently recommend it to the House.

Mr. ANEURIN BEVAN: There is one important point which the hon. Member has not answered. The Bill exempts allowances in respect of the applicant for transitional payment. Is this exemption of allowances extended to other members of the family? If an applicant for transitional payment is allowed to retain cer-

tain of his savings surely the same should apply to other members of the household.

Mr. HUDSON: I covered that point very fully in my remarks last week. I said then, and I repeat now for the benefit of the hon. Member, that where a local authority at present takes an applicant's savings into account they will be bound by the rule; where now a local authority have taken an applicant's household savings into account they will equally be bound by the rule.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 344; Noes, 45,

Division No. 364.]
AYES.
[7.38 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke
Castle Stewart, Earl
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Fox, Sir Gifford


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Cayzer, Mal. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Fraser, Captain Ian


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.
Gazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Fremantle, Sir Francis


Albery, Irving James
Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Fuller, Captain A. G


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Llverp'l, W.)
Chaimers, John Rutherford
Ganzoni, Sir John


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Chamberlain,Rt.Hon.Sir J.A.(Birm.,W)
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Gibson, Charles Granville


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Christie, James Archibald
Gillett, Sir George Masterman


Aske, Sir Robert William
Clarke, Frank
Gledhill, Gilbert


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe
Clarry, Reginald George
Glossop, C. W. H.


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Clayton, Dr. George C.
Gluckstein, Louis Halle


Atkinson, Cyril
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Goff, Sir Park


Baillie Sir Adrian W. M.
Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey
Goldie, Noel B.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Conant, R. J. E.
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Cooke, Douglas
Gower, Sir Robert


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Cooper, A. Duff
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)


Balniel, Lord
Copeland, Ida
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter


Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey
Cranborne, Viscount
Greene, William P. C.


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Crooke, J. Smedley
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John


Beaumont, Hon, R.E.B. (Portsm'th,C.)
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middiesbro', W.)


Belt, Sir Alfred L.
Cross, R. H.
Grimston, R. V.


Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Crossley, A. C.
Gritten, W. G. Howard


Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel
Culverwell, Cyrll Tom
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.


Bernays, Robert
Curry, A. C.
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset,Yeovil)
Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)


Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)
Davison, Sir William Henry
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)


Bird, Sir Robert B.(Wolverh'pton W.)
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Hamilton. Sir R.W.(Orkney & Z'ti'nd)


Blaker, Sir Reginald
Denville, Alfred
Hanley, Dennis A.


Blindell, James
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Hartington, Marquess of


Borodale, Viscount
Dickle, John P.
Hartland, George A.


Bossom, A. C.
Donner, P. W.
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)


Boulton, W. W.
Doran, Edward
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Drewe, Cedric
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsf'd)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington,N.)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Dunglass, Lord
Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Eady, George H.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.


Broadbent, Colonel John
Eales, John Frederick
Holdsworth, Herbert


Brockiebank, C. E. R.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)


Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks.,Newb'y)
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)


Burghley, Lord
Eimley, Viscount
Hopkinson, Austin


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Hornby, Frank


Burnett, John George
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Horsbrugh, Florence


Burton, Colonel Henry Walter
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Howard, Tom Forrest


Butt, Sir Alfred
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blk'pool)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)


Caine, G. R. Hall-
Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)


Campbell, Rear-Adml. G. (Burnley)
Everard, W. Lindsay
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.


Carver, Major William H.
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Iveagh, Countess of


Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Munro, Patrick
Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-in-F.)


James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Nall, Sir Joseph
Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Jamleson, Douglas
Nall-Cain, Arthur Ronald N.
Smith-Cariagton, Neville W.


Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)
Nathan, Major H. L.
Smithers, Waldron


Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Somervell, Donald Bradley


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merloneth)
Newton, Sir Douglas George C.
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Ker, J. Campbell
Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)
Soper, Richard


Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
O'Connor, Terence James
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Kerr, Hamilton W.
O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Stevenson, James


Knight, Holford
Patrick, Colin M.
Stones, James


Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Peat, Charles U.
Storey, Samuel


Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Law, Sir Alfred
Petherick, M.
Strauss, Edward A.


Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, B'nstaple)
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Lees-Jones, John
Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n,Bliston)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Pike, Cecil F.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Potter, John
Summersby, Charles H.


Levy, Thomas
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Sutcliffe, Harold


Lewis, Oswald
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Templeton, William P.


Liddell, Walter S.
Procter, Major Henry Adam
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)
Thompson, Luke


Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Mebane, William
Ramsbotham, Herwaid
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)
Ramsden, E.
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


McCorquodale, M. S.
Rea, Waiter Russell
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-
Train, John


MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Turton, Robert Hugh


McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Remer, John R.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


McKie, John Hamilton
Renwick, Major Gustav A.
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


McLean, Major Alan
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecciesall)
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Walisend)


Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Robinson, John Roland
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Magnay, Thomas
Ropner, Colonel L.
Wardiaw-Milne, Sir John S.


Maitland, Adam
Rosbotham, S. T.
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Mallalleu, Edward Lancelot
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.
Runge, Norah Cecil
Wells, Sydney Richard


Marsden, Commander Arthur
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)
Weymouth, Viscount


Martin, Thomas B.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield,B'tside)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Mills, Sir Frederick (Layton, E.)
Salmon, Major Isidore
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Saft, Edward W.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Mline, Charles
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Wise, Alfred R.


Mitcheson, G. G.
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Withers, Sir John James


Matson, A. Hugh Eisdale
Savory, Samuel Servington
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Scone, Lord
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Morgan, Robert H.
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)



Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Sinclair, Maj. Rt Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Morrison, William Shepherd
Skelton, Archibald Noel
Sir George Penny and Mr. Womersley.


Muirhead, Major A. J.
Slater, John



NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
McGovern, John


Attlee, Clement Richard
Grundy, Thomas W.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)


Banfield, John William
Hail, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Milner, Major James


Batey, Joseph
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Parkinson, John Allen


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hicks, Ernest George
Price, Gabriel


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Jenkins, Sir William
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Buchanan, George
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Slivertown)
Tinker, John Joseph


Cape, Thomas
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Wellhead, Richard C.


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Kirkwood, David
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David


Cove, William G.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Craven-Ellis, William
Lawson, John James
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Dagger, George
Leonard, William
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Edwards, Charles
Lunn, William



Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
McEntee, Valentine L.
Mr. John and Mr. Groves.


Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved, "That this House will immediately resolve itself into the Committee on the Bill."—[Sir H. Betterton.]

Bills accordingly considered in Committee.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Determination of Need.)

Mr. BUCHANAN: On a point of Order. We are faced with the difficulty of proceeding with the Committee stage of the Bill immediately after the Second Reading. Usually Amendments appear on the Paper and Members understand what is their purpose. Manuscript Amendments have been handed in from various quarters. Will you kindly state what Amendments you propose to call, so that those whose Amendments are ruled out of order may decide that they have no further interest in them. It would be as well at the outset if you would tell us whether any Amendments are to be called and whose Amendments they are.

The CHAIRMAN: I think that the only Amendment on Sub-section (1) which may be in order is an Amendment, on page 2, line 19, at the end of paragraph (d), to insert the words:
The Minister of Labour shall have power to issue to public assistance committees instructions to guide them as to the manner in which family income may be estimated in. determining the needs of applicants for transitional payments.
I have not had much time to consider the Amendment, but at the moment I am inclined to think it is in order, and I propose to call it in due course, reserving the right if, as the argument develops, I find it is out of order, to say so.

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Henry Betterton): I have only just heard of the Amendment, but I submit that it is out of order because it would give me power to make regulations which would increase the charge.

The CHAIRMAN: It is precisely with that idea in my mind that I said I reserved the right to say that the Amendment was out of order if I thought that was necessary as the discussion proceeded. The Amendment appears to be designed to give the Minister power to issue instructions as to what is his interpretation of the law. That is the way in which I read the Amendment at the moment. Perhaps the Minister will consider that point, and any question as to whether the Amendment is in order can be raised again when this Amendment is reached.

Mr. J. JONES: On a point of Order. We ordinary Members have no chance of
considering any of these manuscript Amendments. It has already been suggested that nothing can be done to increase the charge. Is it not taking too much advantage of the patience of this House to ask us to accept Amendments of which we have never heard before?

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now going against what the House has decided. It decided to resolve itself immediately into Committee on the Bill.

Mr. JONES: Always on previous occasions we have had the Amendments printed.

HON. MEMBERS: No.

The CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment which is in order is in Subsection (2) on page 2, line 20, after the word "relief" to insert the words "to any able-bodied person." There is another Amendment, in Subsection (2), line 22, after the word "observe," to insert the words "in any individual case." So far as I am able to discover those are the three Amendments that I propose to call.

Mr. MABANE: I handed in an Amendment, in Sub-section (1, a), page 1, line 16, after the word "half," to insert the words "as a minimum." May I have a Ruling as to why that Amendment is out of order, because I did not frame it with any intention of increasing the charge, but in order to make quite clear the intention of the Act? The Minister told us yesterday that at least as a minimum there should be 50 per cent. I have read the Bill and cannot see why the Minister said that. I felt, therefore, that the Minister would certainly desire this Amendment to be moved, in order that the Bill might be in conformity with his statement. Our experience in the past has been that public assistance committees to whom we have referred answers to questions by Ministers in this House in defining matters of this sort, have replied that they cannot administer answers to questions or speeches by Ministers, as they are not the law.

The CHAIRMAN: I cannot base my Ruling upon anything which may have taken place in Debate or on any opinion expressed by any Member of the House, whether a Member of the Government or not. I have considered that particular
Amendment with very great care, and I have come to the conclusion that it will be possible to interpret it in such a way as to enable the charge to be increased. On those grounds, I must rule it out of order. The only thing I can say, if it is any satisfaction to the hon. Member, is that if I am wrong in considering that it might have the effect of increasing the charge, quite obviously the Amendment would have no effect whatever.

Mr. LANSBURY: On a point of Order. If the Amendment to Sub-section (1), page 2, line 19, to insert the words:
The Minister of Labour shall have power to issue to public assistance committees instructions to guide them as to the manner in which family income may be estimated in determining the needs of applicants for transitional payments.
were carried, would that not mean that the Minister would have power to abolish the destitution test for the family? Is not the foundation of public assistance work that you apply the destitution test to the applicant, with the exception that is made in this Bill. You take the family income into account, and it is the destitution test applied to the whole family. If the words of that Amendment are accepted do they not mean that we abolish that test and substitute something entirely different?

The CHAIRMAN: Perhaps in the circumstances my proper course would be to ask the hon. Member to try to justify his Amendment and to show that it is not out of order.

Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: To what Amendment are you referring?

The CHAIRMAN: The Amendment in page 2, line 19, at the end to add the words:
The Minister of Labour shall have power to issue to public assistance committees instructions to guide them as to the manner in which family income may be estimated in determining the needs of applicants for transitional payments.
8.0 p.m.
I am inclined to think after what the right hon. Gentleman has said that the Amendment has a tendency, at any rate, to place a temptation in the way of the Minister of Labour—if I may put it in that way—to issue some instructions which would widen the law, and, if it would do so, it would of course increase the charge, and would therefore be out of order.

Mr. MABANE: It was not my intention to do anything that would increase the charge.

Mr. J. JONES: Then what is the good of it?

Mr. MABANE: That is what I am endeavouring to show the Committee. In the course of these Debates the Minister has indicated the sort of interpretation which he desires to put upon this means test and upon the Bill. In the past experience of many of us we have found considerable confusion in the minds of members of public assistance committees as to how they should assess the means of families and how they should take into account the earnings or income of the members of a family in which an applicant is living.

Mr. WALLHEAD: Even in Huddersfield?

Mr. MABANE: Even in Huddersfield we have that difficulty, and it is in order to get over that difficulty that I want these words inserted in the Bill. Public assistance committees have asked for instruction and guidance as to how they shall assess the means of various members of a family. We are told that this Bill is a temporary Measure and that in a very short time a more comprehensive Measure will be introduced to alter the general basis of unemployment insurance—

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is now getting on to the merits of his proposed Amendment. I want him first to try to persuade me that it is an Amendment to which there can be no objection on the ground that it goes beyond the terms of the Resolution on which the Bill is founded.

Mr. MABANE: It appears to me that there is a certain amount of money to be distributed through the agency of the public assistance committees by way of transitional payments. Our object is to secure that it shall be distributed in the most equitable manner possible. Public assistance committees may not have the wisdom of the Minister and may not decide to distribute the money in the most equitable way. They may want guidance from the Minister as to the distribution of the money. It seems to me that the Minister is, very properly, the person to
guide them as to the best way in which the money can be distributed and the best way in which the means of families can be assessed. It also seems to me to be of advantage that that best way should be generally applied, instead of having one committee distributing the money in a manner that is not good, while another may distribute it in a manner that is good. Rather let them all distribute it in the manner that is good. If the words of the Amendment were inserted in the Bill, then the Minister would be able to instruct all committees throughout the country as to how they could distribute, not more money but the available money, for the best interests of the country.

Sir FRANCIS ACLAND: As my name is attached to the proposed Amendment may I add to the submission of my hon. Friend. I happen to have been Minister in four different departments, and I remember several occasions on which matters calling for interpretation have been raised by bodies such as these committees. Questions of interpretation are raised which are sometimes difficult and the Minister, in those cases, obtains the opinion of the Law Officers and sends out circulars saying that he is advised that the proper interpretation of the law—short of it being tested in the courts, which is, of course, the last resort—is so and so. He would naturally not be advised that such an interpretation was one that would involve any new charge, but it seems to me that in this case the Minister might desire to issue circulars on points requiring elucidation by the Law Officers and I submit therefore that it would be proper to allow this power to be taken as proposed in the Amendment.

Mr. LOGAN: Does the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Mabane) suggest that a stereotyped regulation is to be sent out to all committees

Mr. MABANE: I do not think that is a point which I can properly answer now as it is the question of order which is now being discussed.

Mr. J. JONES: I have listened to this argument on the constitutional position and the rights and the powers of the Minister, and as one who is not only a Member of the House of Commons, but also a
Member of a local authority, which is going to be severely hit when this Bill becomes law, I wish to say—

The CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member wants to put a point of Order on the particular matter which we are now discussing, he must confine himself to doing so.

Mr. JONES: I intend to do so, but that was a preliminary.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member's preliminary is out of order. He must if he has any argument to advance upon the point, address himself to the question of whether this Amendment is or is not out of order.

Mr. JONES: The whole thing is out of order. I say emphatically that the House of Commons is jockeying with the Bill, that the Bill itself is an insult and that this Committee stage is a farce. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] You can order me about as much as you like, but I tell you what I think.

The CHAIRMAN: I have now definitely come to the conclusion that I cannot admit this Amendment as being in order. With regard to what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Cornwall (Sir F. Acland) said just now, there is nothing to prevent the Minister at any time writing in reply to a local authority, when he is asked to do so, to tell them—if he has obtained it—the opinion of the Law Officers on the state of the law. It is obvious, however, from the argument of the hon. Member who proposed to move this Amendment, that it might have the effect of giving the Minister definite statutory power to state what the law was and that would be giving him a power which, even though it might not increase the charge, would go beyond the Resolution on which the Bill is founded. Nothing can be put into the Bill which would go outside the terms of that Resolution, and the Resolution contains no power and no authority to this Committee to put in any provision whatever dealing with any question of family means. I must therefore rule the Amendment out of order.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: When the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition rose I thought he was going to put a point of Order on the Amendment which was mentioned earlier—in Clause 1, page
1, line 16, after the word "half," to insert the words, "as a minimum." If I may, I wish to revert to the point raised as to that Amendment.

The CHAIRMAN: We have passed from that. I called on the hon. Member who had down an Amendment to a later part of the Clause to explain his Amendment in order that I might give a Ruling upon it.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: I submit, Sir Dennis, that you did not call upon my hon. Friend to move his Amendment and that the discussion which has just taken place arose upon a point of Order which the Leader of the Opposition raised. I am not complaining, but the right hon. Gentleman opposite got up, as I thought, to continue the discussion on the point as to the earlier Amendment, whereas in fact his point of Order related to the later Amendment on which you have just ruled. I did not wish to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman then, but I venture to ask your permission now to make a submission to you in reference to the earlier Amendment which I think is important. There is real obscurity as regards the point raised in that earlier Amendment and the Minister actually stated yesterday that the Bill contained the words which the Amendment seeks to insert—

The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that I cannot allow the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to go back to that Amendment. The position is that it was for the Chair to select Amendments which could be moved. I dealt with the question to which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is now referring and said that I ruled that Amendment out of order. After that, we passed to another Amendment referring to a later line in the Clause, and I called upon the hon. Member to explain that Amendment in order to see if I could permit it to be moved. It is impossible now to go back to the consideration of any Amendment on any earlier part of the Clause. The next point in the Clause, where are Amendments which are in order, is page 2, line 20. Two Amendments have been handed in, very much to the same effect, in reference to that line of the Clause. I do not propose to call both of them. I shall call one which is in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne)
and other hon. Members—in Clause 1, page 2, mine 20, after the word "relief," to insert the words,
to destitute able-bodied persons out of employment.

Mr. TRAIN: I beg to move, in page 2, line 20, at the end, to insert the words "to destitute able-bodied persons out of employment."
In moving this Amendment, I take advantage of what the Minister of Health said yesterday:
This Clause is not a major recommendation of the Bill; it is only an auxiliary recommendation, and it will be my duty to give the most particular attention to any detailed criticism of the Clause which may be advanced when we come to the Committee stage."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th November, 1932; col. 880, Vol. 270.]
I need not remind the Committee that the Poor Law Act of 1845 stated that it was the duty of the relieving authority to provide adequate sustenance for the legal poor, and this generally is on a more adequate or generous scale than the transitional payments. As I am a Glasgow Member, I will take that city, which pays to a man with a wife and three children, in poor relief, 41s. 6d. per week, while a similar man on transitional payment would get 29s. 6d. If the Bill is passed in its present form, not only will the recipient of transitional payment benefit in a pension or compensation case, but the recipient of Poor Law relief will also benefit by the half of his pension or compensation, and thereby you will increase the anomaly. Supposing the pension is 100 per cent., or 40s., the recipient of Poor Law relief with a wife and three children will then have 61s. 6d. per week provided, while the transitional case would have 49s. 6d. Transitional payment to the able-bodied poor is intended to tide a man over his spell of idleness, while Poor Law relief is paid to persons who seldom have any outlook in life beyond their Poor Law relief. Consequently, the tendency is to be more generous to the latter class, in Glasgow at any rate.
The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health last night gave the House an indication of the cost of including the Poor Law cases in the operation of the Bill, and he took as his factor of division the figure 4. According to the information in the possession of the De-
partment of Health, the factor for ordinary able-bodied poor is not 4, but 1.8. In working out his figures, the right hon. Gentleman said the cost would only be £250,000. It is a very easy calculation, if the factor is 1.8, which I am informed is correct, to see that the amount mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman can be doubled, and that it will be £500,000 or more. The local authorities in Scotland ask that they should deal with similar classes of people in a similar fashion, and that the class which is not similar, namely, the disabled and the aged, should be differently treated according to the discretion of the local authorities.
We are told that the Clause is optional, but we know that the authorities will be forced to adopt it. Indeed, the very fact of its inclusion in an Act of Parliament is an invitation to them to adopt it, and if any authority should refuse, it would be thought to be mean or parsimonious. We have been told all along that this is a temporary Measure. Why upset the local authorities in the administration of the Poor Law? So far as I am aware, nobody is asking the Government to touch the Poor Law. This Bill is intended to equalise things and to cut out hardships. If we deal with the class of people that we mention in the Amendment, we shall deal with all that is necessary, but to introduce, in a temporary Measure of this kind, something that will upset the administration of all the local authorities is, I think, a great mistake, and I trust the Minister will give the Amendment his careful attention.

Mr. O'CONNOR: I am forced by your Ruling, Sir Dennis, to support this Amendment, although I should have preferred the Amendment that stands in my name, which would present fewer administrative difficulties than would the acceptance of this one. However, I do not wish to waste time by submitting that there is a real difference between the two Amendments, and I will confine myself to giving, in support of this Amendment, the reasons that I would have given in support of my own. The Amendment, as I read it, is an attempt to do exactly what the Minister said yesterday he wanted to do, namely, to extend the more generous treatment contained in
the first Sub-section to those who have never been in insurance and are therefore not transitional risks, but who are otherwise on the same footing as the transitional risks. That, I submit, can be done by the limiting words which it is now proposed to put into Sub-section (2). As Sub-section (2) reads at present, it extends to all cases that come under the administration of the Poor Law. All cases that are dealt with by public assistance committees may be dealt with by them under the terms of the first Subsection, and the words which it is now sought to add:
to destitute able-bodied persons out of employment,
would limit the operation of the Bill to persons who, having never been in insurable employment, are not transitional risks. I would have preferred my own words, which were simply, "any able-bodied person," because that would not create a new class and would not create, therefore, the fresh administrative difficulties which the Minister might, quite fairly, say would be created by adding this separate class which is not now recognised in any English Act of Parliament.
I want to reinforce what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart (Mr. Train) in moving the Amendment. Here you have an admittedly temporary Bill, a Measure to deal with temporary situation which will no doubt come to an end next June. In the Clause as it stands, you are in fact bringing about a vast and permanent change in the whole administration of the Poor Law. Undoubtedly there is a case for the revision of the Poor Law, but this is not the way to do it. To do it by a side-wind, in a Bill which deals, not with the revision of the Poor Law, but with an alteration in the conditions applicable to persons who apply for transitional payment, is, in my view, entirely the wrong way to do it.
Further, granting that it is desirable so to amend the Poor Law as to give effect to the earlier part of Clause 1, that is to say, to allow applicants for Poor Law relief to have these statutory deductions made in computing their means, you would have, in any Bill dealing with the subject, to provide money out of which the local authorities are to meet the added burdens which would be imposed upon them in dealing with general
relief. According to the opinions which I can gather, the burdens which will be placed on local authorities, and which will result in increases in rates if this Subsection becomes law, are very considerable. The Minister gave a figure last night of £250,000, but even on the assumption that only the present applicants for outdoor relief would he the people to be considered, the legitimate fear of the local authorities is that this would open the door for a large increase in the applications and for applications to be made for relief from a class which at the present is not applying for outdoor relief at all. How real that fear is will become apparent when I remind the Committee of what, if the Sub-section is passed as it is, public assistance committees will have to deduct in cases that come before them. They will be at liberty to deduct one-half of any war pensions—

Mr. LAWSON: Your Amendment is to exclude them.

Mr. O'CONNOR: Not at all. They will be able to deduct in the case of all persons, whether they are able-bodied unemployed, old age pensioners, sick, infirm and so on, one-half of war pensions arid one-half of workmen's compensation. In addition to that, they will have to make statutory deductions of 5s. in respect of allowances from friendly societies, and 7s. 6d. in respect of any payments from the National Health Insurance. The net result is that any individual case in applications for out relief from sick, infirm and old people, may have a substantial amount which the public assistance committees will be at liberty, if this Sub-section becomes law, to ignore. An hon. Gentleman who interrupted implied that that was a good thing. I am not discussing whether it is or not. I say that if you are going to make an alteration of that kind, which obviously must open the door to a large number of persons who do not at present apply for outdoor relief, you must make provision for finance to enable the local authorities to deal with it. Otherwise, the result will be a heavy increase in the burden of the rates, and at present there is no provision whatever in the Measure for providing local authorities with the necessary means. That is the first criticism which induces me to support the Amendment for the purpose of limiting the operation of the Clause to able-bodied
persons, which broadly covers the area of unemployed persons.
8.30 p.m.
There is a second matter. Does anybody imagine for a moment that this far-reaching alteration in the Poor Law will be temporary? The Bill is temporary, it is true, but it must be obvious that this alteration will be riveted upon the Poor Law without discussion or consultation with the local authorities and without any financial provision. The Minister's argument that if we do not carry the Subsection and if we introduce limiting words such as are proposed, we create new anomalies, is admitted. I do not think that even at the cost of that argument this ought to be done without taking the local authorities into consultation, finding out what the potential claims are likely to be, and introducing some measure to provide the finances in order that the local rates may not be increased for the purpose of financing this Subsection. The Minister speaks of anomalies, but does he imagine that even as it is the Clause does not permit anomalies? Under the Clause as it stands, the public assistance committee in one agricultural area can decide to take fully into account war pensions, workmen's compensation, capital accumulated as savings, houses and so on, while in a neighbouring jurisdiction a committee covering practically the same area is permitted to ignore those circumstances. So it is not a conclusive argument to say that this Amendment will create anomalies. They exist already under the Clause itself, and one must face the fact that in any circumstances an anomalous situation is going to be developed. By this Clause as it stands, we are making a far-reaching alteration in the Poor Law which will be permanent and which will deprive the Minister of the existing power of preventing local authorities from taking large stuns of money into account in the ease of the destitute and the old and infirm, and it will open the door to the introduction of a large number of claims upon the Poor Law which will result in the increasing of rates. This ought not to be done by a side wind in this way but by a Measure dealing with rates.

Sir F. ACLAND: I do not want to deal with the merits of the question, for I do not think it is in anyone's mind to modify in this Bill the whole basis of the Poor
Law. I want to make a point in regard to the wording of the Amendment. If the Amendment is adopted,
it shall be lawful, in granting outdoor relief to destitute able-bodied persons out of employment under the enactments relating to the Poor Law, to observe all or any of the rules required
those rules being rules which enable persons to be dealt with who are not destitute at all. The word "destitute" would prevent anyone coming up under this Sub-section and being treated in the way which the Sub-section intends. It intends that one of the rules that may he observed is that a certain allowance may be made when the value of the investments runs up even to £300. The person who has £300 in the bank is not a destitute person technically under the Poor Law. Therefore, it seems to me that if this Amendment is meant to mean what the Movers of it mean it to mean, they ought not to put in the word "destitute" because by implication it cuts out people a priori from any consideration of their case.

Duchess of ATHOLL: My name appears to the Amendment which has been called, and I wish to say that in the last few moments, since my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Central Nottingham (Mr. O'Connor) so very well put his case, I have been in consultation with my hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart (Mr. Train) who moved the Amendment, and he authorises me to say that he does not wish the word "destitute" to be a stumbling block. It is a word that has always been in use in Scotland in regard to those applying for public assistance, but he recognises that in the new circumstances provided for in the Bill the word might not be appropriate in all cases. Therefore, he does not wish to insist on it. I think that my hon. and learned Friend and I really mean the same thing, and that the two Amendments are to the same purpose. I feel it difficult to add much to what my hon. and learned Friend has so well said, but perhaps I may be allowed to add a word from the Scottish point of view. It occurred to me at the outset in looking at the Bill, that it was inappropriate to make a big change in the present Poor Law of Scotland by a side wind.
The very first lines of the Bill indicate that it is to amend an Unemployment
Insurance Act, and therefore the matters dealt with in Sub-section (2) of Clause 1 appear to be dragged in. In Scotland, as in England, the Poor Law, or, as I much prefer to call it, the system of public assistance, has its roots deep down in the past. For centuries we have had some system of that kind. It has improved as time has gone on, and I do not venture to suggest that it could stand no more improvement, but I do say very strongly that a question of this magnitude, affecting the lives of thousands of people under such a very old system, should not have this alteration made in. it not only by a Bill which is brought forward to amend an insurance Act but by a Bill which is being rushed through Parliament, with a speed that seems to be almost unparalleled, as far as my Parliamentary experience goes. Further, it is a Bill which is admittedly only a temporary one. As my hon. and learned Friend has so well said, more generous terms given in a temporary Bill can with difficulty be taken back in a more permanent Measure. It seems to me that we are making these changes with really indecent haste.
Further, I suggest that this is a most unseasonable time at which to make changes of this magnitude in the system of public assistance. Unfortunately, we are living in a time of unparalleled financial difficulty, when the Government have found it necessary not only to make drastic economies in various Government Departments but to press every possible economy with great insistence on the local authorities; yet this is the time when, as I venture to say, with indecent haste, without any time for real consultation with the local authorities, and without making any provision for giving them additional assistance in view of the additional burdens which may be cast upon them, the Government come forward to rush these changes through Parliament. My hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart gave some figures relating to Glasgow, and other figures for that city were given by another hon. Friend of mine. I am not sure whether it has been made clear to the House that representatives of the Glasgow Corporation have said that, so far as they can estimate it, the extra charge which will be thrown on the city of Glasgow in respect of those already on the roll and the members of their
families will be no less than £75,000 a year, and that is exclusive of additional charges that will have to be met on account of the additional numbers who will be brought on to the roll by these proposals.
Unquestionably, therefore, this Subsection will make a very heavy addition to the expenditure on public assistance in Glasgow at a time when the Glasgow Corporation have a special committee sitting to see what economies can be made. Is it fair to put local authorities up and down the country in that position? Can they believe that the Government are in earnest about the economies which they have stated publicly they are so anxious to secure? Further, it has been said that there is no public demand for this change in the Poor Law of Scotland. It was very justly put forward yesterday by representatives of the chief cities of Scotland that those who receive relief in Scotland under the Poor Law Act, 1845, have a right of appeal if they are not satisfied with the help they receive, and we were told that whereas the Glasgow Public Assistance Committee deal with hundreds of cases every week only about six in a week appeal against the assistance allotted to them, and usually the appeals are not on the question of the amount of out relief given but against their having been given assistance by way of indoor relief.
Then, as I think my hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart pointed out, it is the practice of the Glasgow Corporation to give higher allowances to the legal poor than the able-bodied get, or than unemployment or transitional benefit. In Glasgow a man with a wife and five children, if he is one of the legal poor, gets 47s. 6d. a week, whereas a man with a wife and the same number in family who is in receipt of unemployment benefit gets 33s. 3d., and a man in receipt of transitional benefit who has been assessed for full benefit gets the same amount. The average wage in Glasgow is said to be not more than 36s. Therefore, those in Glasgow who come under the description of the legal poor are in a distinctly more favourable position than the unemployed, whether insured or whether uninsured. I cannot say whether that is the case in other areas, because there has not been time to ascertain it.
This proposal in regard to the legal poor would probably also throw a considerable burden on rural areas, because, if an able-bodied person loses his employment in a rural area he is likely to drift to a town in search of work, and if he needs relief there he will have to get it from the public assistance committee of the town to which he has gone. I understand there is a possibility that areas in which there is much unemployment may get a larger block grant in respect of the additional burden this Bill proposes to throw upon them, but that additional assistance will not come to the rural areas, because they do not have much unemployment. There is very little work there, and if a man loses his employment in a rural area he is likely to go to a town.

Mr. LOGAN: Did I understand the Noble Lady to say that the average wages of those who are in work in Glasgow is 36s. a week?

Duchess of ATHOLL: Yes.

Mr. LOGAN: If that be so, is it your intention, because Poor Law relief is 41s. ad., that that amount be reduced to below the level of their earning capacity?

Duchess of ATHOLL: No, there is no question of that, and the hon. Member has not got the figure correctly. The figure I gave for a man with a wife and five children was 47s. 6d. a week—40s. of pay and 7s. 6d. for rent. There is no question of reducing anybody.

Mr. LOGAN: The figure I quoted was for a man with a wife and three children. It was quoted earlier in the Debate.

Duchess of ATHOLL: Yes, but I was quoting the case of a man with a wife and five children, and therefore the hon. Member's interruption was not quite to the point. This Rill will throw an unknown and possibly a considerable burden upon rural areas without offering them any hope of the additional grant which, I understand, may inure to town areas where there is considerable unemployment. But we Scottish Members feel that the able-bodied unemployed stand in a somewhat different category from the ordinary poor. It is only in recent years that they have become eligible for relief. Therefore, their records have been kept entirely dis-
tinct from the records of the ordinary poor, and their pay sheets are entirely separate. There is a case, we feel, for giving them the benefit of the additional allowances that the Bill would give to those who are upon transitional benefit. Some of us know only too well that these are days of increasing unemployment among agricultural labourers and those who work upon landed estates. We would not wish to stand in the way of those men receiving the additional allowances that the Bill proposes to give, and therefore we have moved this Amendment which will make the able-bodied poor, but not the ordinary poor, eligible for those allowances.

Mr. O'CONNOR: On a point of Order. May I ask whether, in view of the Noble Lady's speech, you would be prepared to accept the withdrawal of this Amendment and to call mine? My right hon. Friend the Minister of Health has ruled against this Amendment as a practical proposition.

The CHAIRMAN: The question of the withdrawal of the Amendment is in the hands of the Committee. I suggest that the point might be met by a proposal to amend the Amendment. If the hon. and learned Member who has just put the question to me cared to propose an Amendment to the Amendment, in order to leave out the word "destitute," I think possibly that that might meet the case.

Sir F. ACLAND: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the word "destitute."
I do so in order that the Committee may be able to discuss the subject that it wishes to discuss.

Sir J. LAMB: May I second that Amendment?

Mr. LANSBURY: Would you kindly read the Amendment as it will be if amended?

The CHAIRMAN: The Amendment before the Committee was to insert the words:
to destitute able-bodied persons out of employment.
The proposed Amendment to that Amendment is "to leave out the word 'destitute.'" If that Amendment were made,
the Amendment which would then be before the Committee would be: to insert the words:
to able-bodied persons out of employment.

Mr. LANSBURY: I am sorry, but we shall probably have a number of hon. Members getting up to speak, and we are likely to be in for a discussion. I have heard part of it. I want to bring the Committee back to reality. By the Act passed 12 months ago, persons applying for transitional benefit are put under the public assistance committees. They come willy-nilly under the destitution test of the Poor Law, without any question. Mere transfer to the public assistance committee puts them under the Poor Law destitution test. That is one thing. The Government have to some extent amended that, or they propose to do so by this Bill. The proposition in Subsection (2) of Clause l is that public assistance committees should have the power, which would not be obligatory upon them, I understand, to give the same right to non-insured persons as are possessed by persons who have been insured but who have run out of insurance.

The CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman will forgive me for a moment, but I am quite sure that he will realise that he ought to confine his remarks to the question of the Amendment to the Amendment which is as to whether the word "destitute" should be in the proposed words or not.

Mr. LANSBURY: It may be very awkward to argue that case. It is a much broader question than that.

The CHAIRMAN: May I make a suggestion to the Committee? I do not think there is very much difficulty. Possibly the Committee will be prepared to accept the Amendment to the Amendment, and there could then be a discussion upon the Amendment. If that is the general view of the Committee—

Mr. BATEY: Let us hear what the Minister says.

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Hilton Young): I understand that the suggestion of the Chairman would be acceptable for the convenience of the Committee, without prejudice to the major issue.

Mr. BUCHANAN: That does not prejudice a further Amendment?

The CHAIRMAN: It would be open to the Committee to consider the amended Amendment.

Mr. LANSBURY: The Committee is dealing here with the principle of whether to include a destitute able-bodied person or an ordinary able-bodied person. I do not know how a person who is not destitute can be dealt with—perhaps some lawyer will tell me, and I say this quite respectfully—by a public assistance authority. I want to bring that point home to the Committee, because that is the crux of our opposition to this matter. If the Committee is going to say that a public assistance committee shall not take into account destitution, well, good luck! We shall support that with all our strength, because that is an alteration of the Poor Law for which I have been fighting for a very long time. It will, if it is carried, smash up all this family-income business. The reason for the family income being taken into account is that the persons who apply must be living under conditions of destitution. If the applicant is living in a family with means, it is regarded as the moral duty of the family to take care of that person. That it all wrong—quite wrong. If this is agreed to, I want it to apply not only to a man who is able-bodied but one who happens to be sick. If you put in the able-bodied—

Sir F. ACLAND: We shall come back to that shortly when the word "destitute" is dealt with.

Mr. LANSBURY: I can only deal with the Amendment that is before the Committee. I expect that the Chairman will pull me up again if I start dealing with something with which the Amendment does not deal.

Mr. O'CONNOR: So far as I understand it, we are at the present moment discussing a purely technical position. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) was not here when it was pointed out that the word "destitute" in this Amendment made it futile, and of no effect. It is now proposed as an Amendment to leave out that word in order that the Committee may consider an Amendment which is in the same terms. The Amendment which I have later on the Order Paper does, at
any rate, make sense. If the right hon. Gentleman will allow the Committee's view to be taken on this question, all his arguments will be perfectly germane on the main point.

Mr. LANSBURY: It may be that I am very dense, but I do not understand that the deletion of the word "destitute" from the Amendment makes any difference to the Poor Law as it is at present administered. The Poor Law as at present administered—and this is our whole charge—says that a person must be destitute before he can have any public assistance. That is the law as it is laid down by the Ministry of Health. I do not believe that they have any legal justification for it, but it has grown up, and, if any means are available to a person, he is not destitute according to the Orders and Rules under which public assistance is administered. Therefore, it does not matter whether the word "destitute" is left in or not; the position remains the same. If people go to the public assistance committee, they are dealt with there as destitute persons.

Sir F. ACLAND: No.

Mr. LANSBURY: I am going to stick to my point, because I know as much about this matter as the right hon. Gentleman. He has served under four Ministries, but I have served for 42 years as a Poor Law guardian, and know what I am talking about. I know that, if people go to the public assistance committee, they will, unless the House tonight changes it, be dealt with as destitute persons, or they will not be dealt with at all. My point is that it will be an iniquity if this Amendment is limited to able-bodied persons only. [Interruption.] I will sit down if somebody will tell me that it is not limited in that way.

9.0 p.m.

Sir F. ACLAND: This is a Clause which tries to extend the relief that may be given under the Poor Law. I have not yet understood whether it is the desire of the Government that the Poor Law shall be relaxed in all cases, but, at any rate, the Amendment as originally moved proposed to confine the relaxation to certain cases. The Leader of the Opposition is perfectly right in saying that at present the Poor Law deals only with destitute persons, but this Clause, if it is carried, will surely mean that
persons may be relieved even if they are not destitute—even if they have £300. The Clause as it stands represents a broadening of the area of the Poor Law and a broadening of the relief that may be given. Words were moved to limit that, and those words, as I maintain, are not only limiting words, but really make it impossible to broaden the Poor Law for any class, because, if you say it shall be lawful, in granting outdoor relief to destitute able-bodied uemployed, to make these relaxations, they will have to come within the class of destitute able-bodied unemployed before any relaxation can be made. My Amendment, by leaving out the word "destitute," would at any rate broaden the area of the possible relaxation. The Government may desire, when we come back to discuss the whole Amendment, to have the area of relaxation so broadened as to extend to everyone, but, at any rate, my proposal would make it possible, by leaving out the word "destitute," for the Clause to mean something, and at any rate to broaden to some extent the area of the people who may be relieved, whereas it may be that the Government want it broadened so as to embrace everyone under the Poor Law. It was pointed out, and I think, if I may say so, that the ruling is correct, that, with the word "destitute" left in, it is really technically impossible to broaden the area, that is to say, to deal with people who are no longer technically destitute. We all want to broaden it, and, if the word "destitute" is left in, we shall not be able to do so.

Mr. LANSBURY: I am not asking that the word "destitute" should be left in—

Sir F. ACLAND: That is the Amendment.

Mr. LANSBURY: I understand that we are being allowed to discuss it—[Interruption]—that we only took this point in order that we might get on with the discussion. I understood that we were discussing the whole Amendment, and that it was taken in this way to enable Members to state their views.

The CHAIRMAN: I must correct the right hon. Gentleman. We are not at
the moment discussing the whole Amendment. We cannot discuss the Amendment as a whole until we have got rid of this small proposed Amendment to it.

Mr. LANSBURY: There was a proposal to put in the word "destitute"—

Mr. O'CONNOR: With other words.

Mr. LANSBURY: With other words; and then it was proposed that the word "destitute" should be left out, and we agreed for the purposes of discussion—

Mr. O'CONNOR: No.

Mr. LANSBURY: I understood that we did.

The CHAIRMAN: That is why I interrupted the right hon. Gentleman once before. It seems to me that he is assuming that the Committee have amended the Amendment, but they have not done so; there has not been an opportunity of putting that question to the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman, if I understand him aright, wishes now to go back to the discussion of the whole Amendment when it has been amended by leaving out the word "destitute."

Mr. LANSBURY: I do not mind so long as the Committee can get into a position in which we shall be allowed to discuss the matter.

Mr. BATEY: I should like the Committee to understand clearly the meaning of the Amendment to the proposed Amendment. It seems to me that the Movers of the original Amendment have been caught in their own net. They have moved an Amendment to insert the words:
destitute able-bodied persons out of employment.
Their intention is clear. It is to confine the concessions which it is proposed to grant to people in receipt of transitional benefit to able-bodied poor only. We do not want them to be so confined; we want them to be given to the destitute as well; and I think we ought to divide the Committee on the question of the deletion of the word "destitute" from the Amendment.

Mr. BUCHANAN: An Amendment has been moved to insert the words:
destitute able-bodied persons.
At the present time a person who makes application for Poor Law relief must be destitute, as the Leader of the Opposition has stated. The point is that now the Government are extending the procedure to three classes, but they must still be destitute. The Government now are saying, in effect, that a person can be destitute even although he has £300. It is no use superior people shaking their heads; that is what it means. Transitional payment is Poor Law relief on a national scale, and, to get Poor Law relief on a national scale a person must he destitute. Destitution applies to State relief as well as to local relief. The Bill makes no sense if you amend the Amendment, because it demolishes in the most effective fashion your original position that it is State relief. If it is State relief, you have no right to grant it to these people, because they are not destitute—either that or it is not State relief. I often feel ashamed of my race when I see the meanness of Scottish people. I have seen nearly every wage-cutting movement come from employers who are Scottish. It is a shameful and a shocking thing.
The two main classes are those with disability pensions and workmen's compensation. The other class will not be covered much by it. A man has a disability pension of 30s. a week for himself. If he is fit and able-bodied, he is allowed to retain 15s. and to get 15s. 3d. If he is a sick ex-service man, he gets the Poor Law scale, which is a week in Glasgow, so that he gets 10s. 3d. less. Can anyone defend that? The Government say that they give power to the local authorities to do this if they want to do it, though there may be cases where they do not want to do it, and no one compels them to do it. We ought to have the power to say that a sick ex-service man shall be no less well off than an able-bodied ex-service man. Is there anything unfair in that? Would anyone say that a person who is sick and has workmen's compensation is to be any less well off than another who is able-bodied? The labour market is over-weighted and that type should not be forced on to it. The hon. Member is going to push sick men on to the labour market. If a man with a 30s. pension is certified sick by the Poor Law doctor, he will go to his panel doctor and worry him to certify him able so that he can
get 10s. more. An able-bodied man with a pension of £1 will get 10s., plus 15s. 3d., which is 25s. 3d., whereas, if he is sick, he will only get £1 and he will be 5s. 3d. worse off. Can the hon. and learned Member for Central Nottingham (Mr. O'Connor) deny it? A deputation came and made an appeal to a number of hon. Members opposite. I am one of a small group, but, whatever is said of me, I have applied myself to my work. I have tried to understand the Poor Law and the methods of the Employment Exchanges. Someone is needed to defend the so-called wastrels and so long as I am here I will defend what are supposed to be the very bad ones. The deputation came and saw Conservative Members, but they would not see me. I am not sure about the £75,000, neither is the Noble Lady. She has no facts on which to base her conclusions.

Duchess of ATHOLL: I said it was an estimate made by responsible people.

Mr. BUCHANAN: You have an estimate from the people who want to kill the Clause. Do you think people who are going to kill the Clause would make it £10,000? Of course, they will make it £75,000 to kill it. They want to kill the thing, and they have to make their case. If they think you know nothing about it, they will tell you anything they like. They would not tell that to the Ministry of Health, who could examine the figures. I ask the Committee not to carry this Amendment. To place a sick ex-service man in a worse condition than an able-bodied ex-service man is an anomaly of which no one can approve. It may be that we are making an innovation and that it is being done by means of a side wind, but, apart from that fact, it should be remembered that the Measure will only operate until June of next year, after which a new law will come into effect. Therefore, let us have the experience of working this Measure, and, whatever the Government do on this occasion, they should at least see that the Bill remains as it is and that it is given a genuine try out. We should not listen to these extraordinary figures. They may be right or they may be wrong.

The CHAIRMAN: I think that the hon. Member is getting a little wide of the subject.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I have finished now. As far as destitution is concerned, the Amendment about which there is all the squabbling really does not affect the matter. I make no apology for repeating what the Leader of the Opposition said before the Bill was brought in, that a man had to be destitute in order to get transitional payment. What has happened is that the term "destitute" has been extended so as not to apply to three classes. Instead of juggling with the question of whether the word "destitute" should be in or out those who are responsible for the Measure should proceed to pass it.

Mr. LANSBURY: Cannot we agree to take out the word "destitute" so that we can discuss the Amendment?

Mr. BATEY: No.

Mr. LANSBURY: If we do not take it out we cannot discuss the Amendment. I understand that you can only withdraw one Amendment at a time. I wish to discuss the main Amendment. If hon. Members want to vote, let us vote, but do not let us go on all night.

Sir JOSEPH LAMB: I agree that the Debate has ranged over a wide field, and I regret that there is no Law Officer of the Crown on the Front Bench to give us some information as to the actual law so far as England and Wales is concerned. The word "destitute" in the Amendment does not affect the position so far as Scotland is concerned. I wish to know whether the law in England and Wales is such that a man must be destitute before he can receive Poor Law relief. If the law is as I understand it, I think that as far as England and Wales is concerned the word "destitute" should come out. I hope that someone on the Front Bench will be able to get up and tell us authoritatively the law regarding England and Wales and if it makes any difference to England and Wales whether the word "destitute" remains in or not?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): As far as we are concerned in England, the addition of the word "destitute" makes no difference. The Sub-section of the Clause runs:
It shall he lawful, in granting outdoor relief.
These words are only in respect of destitute persons, and to add the word "destitute" in front of the words "able bodied" in the Amendment is sheer redundancy. Therefore, I suggest, in order to facilitate discussion on the main Amendment, which we all want, that the Amendment to the proposed Amendment should be withdrawn.

Sir F. ACLAND: After the authoritative statement of the hon. Gentleman, which differed very much from another authoritative statement which I obtained in the House, I wish, of course, to withdraw my Amendment to the proposed Amendment. I moved it in order to enable the Clause to be widened. I was afraid that if the Amendment was carried it would make it impossible in England to give any relaxation of the Poor Law. I am now assured that that is not so, and I shall be perfectly happy to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question again proposed, "That these words be there inserted."

Mr. LANSBURY: I hope very much that the limiting Amendment will not be carried. If it is carried it will mean that only the men out of work will get the advantage which the other men are getting. It will mean that only able-bodied unemployed men who are not and never have been insured will be able to get the advantages of the rest of the Act. I wish to join in the appeal made by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan). I was trying to make the appeal but I was ruled out of order—[Interruption.] As long as the appeal has been made it is all right, but I wish to emphasise it, because I know that if the public assistance authorities in London have this power it will prove a very great blessing to many people. I think that I should have tried to persuade my friends to vote for the Bill if the money for the purpose of this Clause was to have been found by the Treasury, because I know that then it would have been operative throughout the country. Local authorities, when money is found by the Treasury, as a rule spend it on the object for which it is voted, but when we knew that this was to be permissive we realised that there would be the opposition which has been voiced here to-day.
It is a rather mean opposition because it is against the most helpless of the people.
I do not want to give individual cases, but it means definitely that if you limit this Clause you leave out the sick, the aged, and the partially disabled persons and put them into the category of Poor Law destitution, which is something this House would not consciously do. If you are to do a generous thing by the able-bodied, surely to goodness you will not do a less generous thing to those who are more helpless. That is the position with which the Amendment really has to deal. On the question of money, if there is a local authority which will face its electors on this subject, it need not even give the money to the agricultural labourer or to the railway worker. If it feels that money is so important, it need not give it to the disabled or to anybody, because the matter is purely permissive. If the local authorities are so sure that public opinion in their areas is against it, they will never act upon it.
I cannot see why the Clause should not stand as it is. If you limit it in this way, you will make the Bill much more pernicious. If it had been affirmative and they must do it, and the money had been found by the Treasury, I repeat that I should have felt inclined to have begged of my hon. Friends to vote for the Bill, even though the rest of it was as bad in some respects as we think it is. This is really something which, if the local authorities will operate it, will help the sick, the aged, and all kinds of people who at present are only living from hand to mouth. I do not know what the Government will say about it. I hope that they will stick to their guns, and not give way on this. Poor people, apart altogether from the ex-service people, are in a bad enough way, but the ex-service people and those who are sick, or who are suffering from any disability, ought not to be forced on to the Poor Law. I think it is a disgrace to the country that any ex-service men should have to go to the Poor Law at all under any sort of conditions. They have earned some better treatment than that, but if this is carried you are going to leave those who are least able to defend themselves in a worse position than the able-bodied.
Let me say one word about this destitution business. It is no use our saying to the public assistance commit-
tees what they can or cannot do because, with the audit law as it is at present, the auditor has the last word on the subject. I know from experience that auditors take the view that there must be sheer destitution, and many of them in England do not give remission of the health insurance money or the health benefit society money that the law lays down. They find reason for saying that you have taken something into account which balances, or rather writes off the relief that the Act of Parliament gives. I am speaking of what I know of London, and. I am confident that they take everything into account, as is shown by the letter of the chairman of the public assistance committee in London, which appeared in the "Times." He put the case a few, days ago absolutely clearly, namely, that you have to see that the applicant has not got anything in his pocket. The result is that when the disabled person goes to the public assistance authorities, his pension and the pensions of those living in the house with him or any other income is taken into account.
You are asking that that shall be struck out only for the able-bodied. I beg the Committee not to do so mean a thing. I do not believe there is anyone who wants consciously to do anything mean to these people, but the Committee will be doing a very mean thing indeed if they carry the Amendment that is being discussed now. I repeat that the Committee is not compelling local authorities to do this, but only giving them the right to do it if the ratepayers in their district back them up. I believe that the overwhelming number of ratepayers, direct and indirect, would cheerfully pay this money in order that the sick and disabled might have a better chance.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. JAMES REID: I should not venture for a moment to support this Amendment if it meant mean or shabby treatment to anybody, and we rather resent the accusation that because we wish to do things in a businesslike and not an un-businesslike manner we are therefore being mean or shabby. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that the Poor Law has stood in exactly the same position for the last 12 years. Both the able-bodied and the people who are not able-
bodied have been under the present disability during two Labour Governments and not one word was said for bettering their lot. On the contrary, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) issued his Circular on this very point in regard to the Poor Law in 1930. It was read by the Minister of Labour last night, and there is not one word about the concessions which are now being given. It does not lie in the mouths of others to reproach us with meanness when we are at least taking away a part of the grievances which have existed without anything being done by their Government. This matter has got to be tackled in a businesslike way, and in two halves. The first half of it deals with the able-bodied who are in the same position, to all intents and purposes, as the people who are getting transitional payment. The whole justification which was put forward by the Minister of Health for making any change at all was founded on the case of these able-bodied poor. Not one word was said about any injustice of any kind being suffered by anybody who was not able-bodied.
Therefore, the immediate problem is to deal with the able-bodied. They can be dealt with at present quite easily, because we hope they will ultimately be taken out of the Poor Law altogether, and accordingly any temporary modification of the Poor Law can be dropped as soon as that permanent modification is made. When we come to the case of the sick and infirm, people who always must remain out of the Poor Law, however much you may alter the way in which the Poor Law is administered, then, why make temporary upsets of this kind? What is going to happen at the end of this temporary Measure? Is there going to be a withdrawal of any privileges that are given to the aged and infirm? Obviously not. Are they to be included within the scope of the new Unemployment Insurance Bill, a Bill which has nothing whatever to do with the aged and infirm and in the scope of which they would be completely out of place, or are they to be included in the scope of a second Bill, namely, a Poor Law Bill to put the Poor Law on a permanent and just foundation? If that is the position, surely seeing that the present posi-
tion has endured ever since the War, it can endure for a few weeks or a few months longer until we make up our minds what we are going to do permanently?
At present, in the view of the Minister of Health, the people in receipt of Poor Law relief seem to divide themselves into three classes. You have, first, the able-bodied unemployed. Everybody agrees that in regard to this Amendment they ought to be treated in the same way as people getting transitional payments. Then you have the class of people who are not deserving—the word "wasters" was used by the Minister as describing some of that class—and I think everybody agrees that they are not as individuals to get the benefit of any of these concessions. That was said by the Minister, and I take it that is the intention of the Government. Then you have a large and intermediate class of people who are not undeserving. On the contrary, they are people who are deserving in hard cases, but who are not on the labour market, and do not come within the scope of any permanent Bill intended to deal with unemployment insurance. They are the people who are, apparently, to get special treatment of a temporary nature. If that is the scheme, as I understand it to be, it is going to be extraordinarily difficult for any local authority to draw a distinction between the deserving poor, who are to get the concessions, and the undeserving poor or wasters who are not to get the concessions.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Wasters do not get relief at all.

Mr. REID: I am using the Minister's own word.

Mr. LANSBURY: Do not put the blame on us.

Mr. REID: I am not putting the blame on anybody. The Bill as it stands will be exceedingly difficult to work and will lead to many anomalies as between one area and another, because the problem proposed in the Bill for each local authority is this, that when each individual case comes before them the public assistance committee will have to decide: "Is this man deserving, in which case we will give him the concessions, or is he an undeserv-
ing man, in which case we will not give him the concessions." That is an invidious and extremely difficult task to put on the shoulders of any public assistance committee, and it will necessarily lead to anomalies and dissatisfaction.

Mr. BUCHANAN: The position is this, that a Poor Law authority will be able to apply this rule if they like to an ex-service man and to workmen's compensation cases in their area, but in the case of a Poor Law person who is, they think, undeserving—I use the term "undeserving" because it is a little less harsh than that of "waster." [Interruption.] Well, the Minister used that word first—it will not be lawful for the Poor Law authority after the passing of this Act to grant any relief to a man if they come to the conclusion that he is undeserving. That is the position, and therefore it does not enter into this discussion at all.

Mr. J. REID: I think the hon. Member is under a misapprehension. I will read what the Minister of Health said last night, and I take it that he knows the law in this matter. He said:
I have argued that there is a big class of those in receipt of public assistance who are indistinguishable on the merits of their cases from those who are in receipt of transitional payments. They ought to receive the concessions,"—
All of us agree with that.
but we have to recognise that there is another class of those who are in receipt of Poor Law relief from public assistance committees who are not on all fours with those receiving transitional payment. How shall I describe them? I will describe them as a class which has among them an element of wasters, those who will not work, those with whom the Poor Law should deal with as deterrent."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th November. 1932; col. 873, Vol. 270.]

Mr. BUCHANAN: They can get indoor relief but not outdoor relief.

Mr. REID: The hon. Member must know that there are many cases where outdoor relief is offered, where indoor relief might be offered.

Mr. LOGAN: Not in cases where they call them "wasters."

Mr. REID: I am taking the Minister's own view, and he ought to know how the law is being administered. It seems to me that this intermediate class must be dealt with in a very different way from the way proposed by the Bill. If you are
going to draw a distinction between people all of whom are unemployed, some of whom are deserving and some undeserving, you are putting on the shoulders of public assistance committees a burden which is invidious, and which they ought not to be called upon to bear. If, on the other hand, the intention of the Government is that everybody is to get these concessions, whether they are deserving or not, why not make the subsection mandatory? The only reason that has been suggested from the Government Bench, and so far as it goes it is a good reason, is because there are certain individuals who the Government think ought not to get these concessions. If that is so, what we ought to search for is a workable disinction between the class which are to get the concession and the class who are not to get the concession.
The distinction of checking the able-bodied people who are in the labour market on the one hand and those who are not in the labour market on the other hand, is perfectly workable. It has been worked in Scotland for 11 years without any difficulty. Although there is no administrative machinery in England to work it, it would not be in the least difficult. Surely, what Scotland can do England can do with a little trouble. Neither Scotland nor England nor any public assistance committee anywhere is competent to tackle the job of deciding whether hundreds of applicants who appear before the committees are individually deserving or undeserving. There are only two possible ways of dealing with this matter from the point of view of administrative convenience. One is to draw a line between the men who are in the labour market and those who are not in the labour market, and the other is to say that everybody is to get the concessions, wheher they are deserving or not.
If it is said that by drawing a line where I suggest between the people who are in the labour market and those who are not it would deprive the unfortunate aged and sick of benefits which the Government wish to give them, I would say that the proper way to deal with that matter is to have a full investigation and a new Bill to deal with those people. If it is found on investigation, and there has been very little investigation before
this Bill was introduced, that those people are being harshly treated, I should not for a moment oppose but, on the contrary, I should enthusiastically support any measure to give them fair and proper treatment. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) is willing to agree that if the experiment is found not to succeed, these concessions should be withdrawn, and if he will guarantee that there will not be any complaints if they are withdrawn, well and good. You must conduct experiments of this kind and if you once start them must you go on with them, whether they are successful or not?
I urge very strongly from the point of view of convenience for the future that a different line of demarcation should be taken from that which the Government have suggested. I would not make that suggestion if it meant being shabby or mean to anyone. Along with that suggestion I would add the further suggestion that the Government should make a complete investigation of any complaints or grievances that there may be regarding the present administration of the Poor Law so far as concerns the non-able bodied, and that we should have a separate Bill dealing with those people in a separate way, and giving them justice.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): I think the Committee will agree that so far we have had an extremely interesting, important and lively Debate on this Amendment. If I rise now to deal with the subject from the Scottish point of view, it is because all the names to the Amendment are those of Scottish Members and a large number of, if not all, the speeches delivered in support have been from Members who sit for Scottish constituencies. There is a good reason why an Amendment in this particular language should be followed specially by Scottish Members. In practice there has existed for the last 11 years a distinction in administration between the relief of the able-bodied poor and what are called in Scottish parlance, the ordinary poor. I will not take the Committee into the historical region beyond saying that before the present time the able-bodied poor were not a subject of relief in Scotland. Since 1921 they have been.
In practice there has been, I think, in the case of all the public assistance authorities in Scotland different lists for the administration of relief as between the legal ordinary poor and the able-bodied poor. Further, in many districts of Scotland the ordinary poor are relieved upon a more generous scale than the able-bodied poor, but it would be hard to find any legal foundation for that practice. It is an example of the practical good sense of Scottish public assistance committees and the general elasticity of the Scottish Poor Law system, but legally there is no distinction between the treatment of ordinary poor and able-bodied poor in Scotland. I do not think, however, that anyone will quarrel with the distinction which many Poor Law authorties in Scotland have made in giving a more generous scale to the infirm poor. In the absence of any legal foundation the case for the Amendment drops. But the argument against the Amendment is, I confess, in many ways attractive because it would perpetuate the distinction made in Scotland between the ordinary poor and the able-bodied poor—[Interruption]—but attractive for that reason only, not for the sinister reason which seems to present itself to the minds of hon. Members opposite.
Everyone who faces the problem raised by the Amendment is brought sharply up against the most serious question, the position of the ex-service man, the disability pensioner. So far as the Poor Law is concerned it is now optional under the Bill for public assistance committees to give the same measure of relief, that is, 50 per cent., which is mandatory in the case of transitional payments, but if the Committee were to accept the Amendment the public assistance committee would not have the option in the case of the disability pensioner as they would have if he were one of the able-bodied poor. It may be said that there cannot be many ex-service men who are likely to become legal poor, that is people who cease to be able-bodied. I have not the figures for the whole of Scotland, but I have figures for Glasgow, which are accurate, and the disability pensioners in Glasgow who are receiving ordinary relief are 450, a not inconsiderable number. It would be very difficult to justify an adverse distinction in the case of a disability pensioner who
had to fall out of able-bodied relief, and say that he shall not have the advantage of this concession while his able-bodied comrade has. I commend that serious consideration to hon. Members who have brought forward the Amendment.
I was impressed by the argument used by the Noble Lady the Member for West Perthshire (Duchess of Atholl) that we were making a very drastic alteration in the Poor Law of Scotland by a side wind and in a Bill which deals with a very different problem. That kind of criticism to legislation is always formidable, but in this case there are considerations, the importance of which I think the Noble Lady will understand. In the first place this interference with the Poor Law is optional only. In the second place, it is not the first time that Parliament has legislated with regard to Scottish Poor Law in an Act other than a Poor Law Act. The case which will at once occur to hon. Members is the disregard of the first 7s. 6d. of national health insurance, which was incorporated, so far as England is concerned, in a Poor Law Act but which, as far as Scotland is concerned, still remains under the National Health Insurance Act of 1924. That was a compulsory provision stating definitely the amount that should be disregarded, and, therefore, the Noble Lady will feel that the action which is being taken here, purely optional in character, is far less drastic and less open to the criticisms which have been made than the earlier action of another Parliament.
We have in Scotland administering public assistance a body of men and women of great capacity who are contributing a notable work to the public services, especially in view of the extra duties which have been placed upon them. To such a body of men and women it is perfectly justifiable on the part of Parliament to give the option which this Sub-section proposes. In my judgment the essence of successful administration of public assistance is to leave to public assistance authorities a large area for the exercise of their own judgment. After only a year of close contact with the question of public assistance I am convinced that, as far as Scotland is concerned, it is a wise step on the part of Parliament to give them this option and to leave in their hands this exercise of judgment.
For my own part, and speaking for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, who has asked me to speak on this occasion because in our division of work at the Scottish Office matters regarding the Poor Law fall particularly to the Under-Secretary—in this matter we felt that it was impossible and unjustifiable to adopt in Scotland measures and provisions other than those which were to be adopted in the South. I cannot think that it would be wise or right that there should be any possibility of different treatment, say, in the case of the ex-service man with a disability pension just because that man happened to be a Scotsman and lived north of the Tweed I do not think that for the purpose of maintaining the historic distinctions and characteristics of Scottish Poor Law, the merits and importance of which I am perfectly satisfied with, we should have been right or justified in adopting the view that the disability pensioner north of the Tweed was to run the risk of treatment less adequate than that accorded to his comrade south of the Tweed. That is not a position which would be seriously faced either by Scottish Members of Parliament or public assistance authorities or the Scottish public.
I sincerely appreciate the view that I know is held by many public assistance authorities in Scotland that the Scottish Poor Law, with its great traditions, its long record of good service, and its very sound principles, is a. thing which should be interfered with as little as possible, even by way of option. But we live in a post-War world that is not the same as the pre-War world, and one of the main features of distinction in this matter is that in the pre-War world there was not a great mass of disability pensioners. Here is a new feature in our social life, and. alas, sometimes in our public assistance life. I am certain that when the authorities in Scotland and the Scottish public in general face up to the question, much as they may admire and revere the ancient principles of Scottish Poor Law, they could not accept a position for the Scottish ex-service pensioner less favourable than that which the pensioner will receive in this country.

Sir J. LAMB: I do not wish to delay the Committee, but I must make a pro-
test, for this is the first time during the 10 years I have been in this House that a Minister has got up to reply to an Amendment and has addressed himself entirely to the Scottish aspect of the case. The Under-Secretary said that he intended to do so, and he has done so, and entirely ignored the very able speech made by my hon. Friend—

Mr. SKELTON: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend. I have adopted exactly the procedure which was adopted in an earlier Debate. I then intervened to discuss the matter from the Scottish point of view, and at a later stage it was discussed from the English point of view.

10.0 p.m.

Sir J. LAMB: I hope we are going to receive a reply from the English point of view, because this is not an Amendment which affects Scotland and Scotland only. Those who have supported the Amendment have not had the opportunity of putting their names to it, the Amendments not having been seen. I hope that this Amendment will be considered on its merits. So far as I am concerned, the principal merit of the Amendment is that it is a limiting Amendment, limiting the provision to the able-bodied man who is not eligible for transitional payment and is making an application for Poor Law relief. Those are the people for whom the Clause was justified, and those are the people, who, we think, should remain in. But we do not wish the provision to be carried over a very much wider area. Now the ex-service man has been brought in. That may be a good case, but it is the duty of the Government to see that these ex-service men are included, if they see fit to do so and not to criticise the Amendment because we have not included them.
What the Amendment does is to create a very great change. I am not going to debate now whether that change is wise or not. Undoubtedly the people who are best able to state what the effect of the Amendment will be are the local authorities who have the administration of the Poor Law. They have not had an opportunity of considering this matter so fully as to enable them to express their opinions to us. What they are not agreed upon is the effect of the Bill in its entirety, but they are agreed that if this
Clause is carried without the Amendment it will undoubtedly add considerably to the local rates. That is something which it is not only our privilege but our duty to consider with very great care, and we have not had an opportunity of doing so. We are told that this is only a temporary Measure, but when great changes are to be made we ought to be very careful. It would be very much better to allow the status quo to remain for the present. Otherwise, when the new Bill comes before the House we may have to retract something which has Already become law. This Bill is being pushed through in special circumstances which give us very little time to consider it fully, as it should be considered. We want to do justice to certain classes of men, and we wish to support the Bill, but in our loyalty to the Government we ought not to be penalised by being called upon to do something which is a very great change and which we think it would be better to delay until next Session.

Mr. HOROBIN: Although a very junior Member I cannot help feeling that the action of the Government in this matter is extraordinary. Poor Law is one of the oldest branches of the law in this country. It is dynamite in any branch; you can hardly touch any part of it without great danger. I never expected to live to see an overwhelming Conservative majority going into the Lobby in favour of a Clause which drives a coach-and-four through the fundamental principles of the Poor Law. We are discussing the Clause under such conditions that even the Amendments have to be in manuscript. I support the Amendment as going some way towards improving a sub-section which seems extraordinarily bad and which I would like to see out of the Bill altogether. I am not, however discussing its merits now, but it seems extraordinary that those merits should not have been discussed. This Clause makes a change in the basis of the Poor Law and it is not a question of how many people it affects. It is a question of principle. The Poor Law has always rested on an intelligible principle, the principle—let it be good, bad or indifferent—of destitution. We are now introducing the principle that where there is £300 you take off la. a week. I ask the Committee if £300, why not £3,000? If is a week why not 2s. or
10s.? [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not £5,000 a year?"] Why not? Where is the principle involved? The principle of destitution is at least a principle, but here by a side wind and in a great hurry we are introducing what everybody knows cannot be merely a temporary change in the basis of the Poor Law. The number of people who will be affected is irrelevant to the point that this is a very bad way of doing business and a dangerous precedent.
I wish to add one other point. Not only has there been no time for discussion in Parliament or consultation with the local authorities. This proposal has not been advised by the Royal Commission, but actually, by implication, has been opposed by them. I would draw the attention of the Committee to the significant fact that the Royal Corn-mission's proposal was not that the Poor Law should be amended in order to make this provision. They carefully proposed leaving the Poor Law as it is, pending any future amendment of it that may be advised. They proposed something wholly different, namely, taking a whole section of people out of the Poor Law. Whether that proposal is right or wrong does not at the moment concern us, but what the Government propose to do is to leave certain people in the Poor Law and make a complete change in the way in which they are to be dealt with by the Poor Law. That is not, I submit, a reasonable method of procedure. With regard to the point made by the Leader of the Opposition as to the hardship on certain people I have never believed that there was any real strength in the contention that people who were put off transitional payment ought not to go on the Poor Law. If the guardians are too hard-hearted or too incompetent to handle the able-bodied young man who can go and demonstrate they are not fit to discharge the other duties. I do not believe that there is anything in that point at all, but I do not want to go into that with the right hon. Gentleman now. I submit that as far as the proposals of the Royal Commission are of any value at all, they are directly against the right hon. Gentleman in this matter, and I submit that nothing has been put forward to the Committee which even begins to justify us in departing from their recommendations and upsetting the whole basis
of this complicated branch of the law without any proper discussion or consultation.

Mr. LANSBURY: For the sake of clarity, may I ask the hon. Member why he did not object to the Bill as a whole? Every word that he has said about this Clause breaking into the Poor Law applies to the rest of the Bill.

Mr. HOROBIN: I quite realise that and I did object to the Bill as a whole. I did not vote for it, and I very nearly voted against it but I thought that would not be the proper thing to do.

Mr. J. JONES: I have been out of order once or twice already this evening, but I hope on this occasion with the indulgence of the Chair to be able to keep in order. It seems to me that an attempt is being made to segregate the poor into compartments and deal with them as though one lot were good, another lot indifferent, and the rest bad. I have heard the word "wastrel" used by those who are experts in that connection—people who, all their lives, have been doing nothing and doing it very well, and drawing big incomes for doing it. Yet, they come here and talk about common people as "wastrels." Hon. Members are very generous to-night in that they are now going to allow the public assistance committees to do something which those committees have already been trying to do in very difficult circumstances I have been for five years a member of a board of guardians, now a public assistance committee—a new name for an old system. The committees are now to be told that they are allowed to do things which they were not allowed to do before; that whether people are able-bodied poor or non-able-bodied poor the committees are to be allowed to arrive at some realisation of their actual position on sympathetic grounds. Agreed, but who is to find the money That has not been suggested by any who have spoken, except on this side.
West Ham is one of the poorest places which has to deal with this problem. We have 20,000 registered unemployed and before the year ends at least 5,000 of those will have exhausted their benefit under the Unemployment Insurance Act and will automatically be compelled to
go to the public assistance committee. Last year after meeting all our responsibilities for those transferred from transitional payment to the public assistance committee, we discovered, at the end of the year, when we made up our budget, that we were £54,000 out, mainly because of the cost of that administration. This year our borough treasurer, one of the smartest in the country, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer to our local authority, estimates that we shall be down £74,000, which means one shilling in the pound increase upon our present rates. We are being pilloried in the London Press—the kind of Press that goes in for "stunts"—because we are highly rated. We are highly rated because we have a high proportion of poverty. The people who make their money out of West Ham, take good care not to live there. They go to all parts of the South of England; they live in Epping Forest or in some of the suburbs of London, though their wealth comes out of the people who live in the district which I represent and similar districts.
You can pass any sympathetic legislation you like, but when it comes to paying the Bill, it all comes back finally to poor old Phil Garlick. He has to find the money. Some of those who are now looking down their noses and smiling know that I am telling the truth. Some of them used to represent East London constituencies but they soon got tired of it, or the people got tired of them, and they found more salubrious places where they could get votes from "mugs." The Poor Law is undergoing a revolution, and hon. Members here say it is a complete revolution. I agree, but the revolution is going to be paid for by the common people in their own districts. Some of us would like to see the whole system of the relationship of poverty to the State revolutionised and everybody in the community bearing his or her fair share of the maintenance of the poor, but instead of that, under our present relationship, the poor have to keep the poor, and the poorer the district the greater the burden.
I was down in South Wales last week on propaganda work—you cannot do much here—and I went to districts where there was practically no work at all for anybody. Even shopkeepers told me that they were on the verge of bankruptcy
because the people had nothing to spend, and that they themselves were on the verge of having to apply for relief to the public assistance committee to keep them going until better times came. There are whole districts of that kind. After all, to say that the poor districts may be more generous in their own localities is an insult to them, and you ought to give them a little assistance nationally, The time will have to come, and will come, even before some of us have shuffled off this Parliamentary coil, when the nation will have to face up to its responsibilities and not keep on playing about with the problem and trying to make the poor districts keep their own poor, as is being done gradually by the proposals now before the Committee.
They say to us, "You have a lot of poor people here, and you must be more generous to them," but that means that we must be less generous with the other lot. The people who cannot help themselves cannot be helped so much because we are to spend more on the able-bodied people. I do not object to helping everybody so far as we are able, and we are doing our best in that direction, but those who are proposing this Amendment to try to tighten up the situation, and the hon. Members who are finding fault with their own Government, who are responsible for this Bill because it costs them nothing—they are always generous with the people in their own localities—say, "Now you can be more generous of you like."
Live horse, and you will get grass.
The whole situation is ridiculous, and that is why I said, in the first place, when the Chairman of Committees called me to order, as he generally does, because be is a lawyer and I am not—I do not mean the present Chairman, because Captain Bourne has always been—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain Bourne): It is not in order for the hon. Member to make personal references to the Chair.

Mr. JONES: I was only paying you a compliment, Captain Bourne.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I must remind the hon. Member that it is not in order either to compliment or to reprobate the Chair.

Mr. JONES: Then I shall have to be very careful what I say in the future, and pay no more compliments. So far as the principle of this Amendment is concerned, we accept that we should give greater opportunities to local authorities that want to do something, but when it comes to finding the means to do it, what help shall we get from the National Government? Are they going to assist us to meet the increased burden that is being placed upon us? I suggest that if that was proposed, a number of those who are supporting the Amendment would not be found in the same Lobby as we shall be. The nation must face up to its responsibilities in this matter, and if you are going to be generous to one section of the poor, you should not limit your generosity to one section only, but be generous to all, and face the common danger that now presents itself.

Lord EUSTACE PERCY: Having given a good deal of thought to this question, and having been very doubtful about the proposal of the Government, I propose to vote against the Amendment. So far as English Members are concerned, what has chiefly disturbed us in this purely temporary Measure is the fear of creating a precedent, but as between two new things, I prefer the new precedent of the Bill to the new precedent of the Amendment. My hon. Friend opposite appeared to think that it was an advantage in the Amendment that it more or less committed the House to the proposals of the Royal Commission, but I am not prepared after three days' study of the Commission's Report to commit myself to their proposals. It seems to me that the proposal in the Bill, doubtful as it is, creates far less of a precedent, a precedent which it will be far easier to depart from in future if the House makes up its mind to depart from it when it comes to permanent legislation, than it will be to depart from the creation of a new legal category of able-bodied—new both in this country and in Scotland. That seems to be a far more dangerous precedent than anything which arises out of this rather hasty piece of legislation.
I hope that the Government recognise how seriously doubtful we feel about the extension of these concessions to the whole body of destitute poor without any distinction at all. There should be a
distinction, and we should regularise in legislation the anomalies of the past. It is a fact that there is at present an anomaly in forbidding public assistance committees to take into account the first 7s. 6d. of national health insurance, and yet requiring them to take into account the means of persons who do not happen to be fortunate enough to be insured. We feel very doubtful about the whole tendency in public assistance legislation, and the Minister will have to meet the close and rigid scrutiny of the House when he brings forward his permanent proposals.

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Hilton Young): The Committee will remember that when we were discussing this Bill on Second Reading, I used words to the effect that there would be an opportunity for considering detailed criticisms and proposals for the amendment of the Bill in Committee. That opportunity has now presented itself. The Debate this evening has followed two lines. There was, first, the Scottish approach, which has been fully dealt with by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, and there is nothing I can add without the expert knowledge which is necessary in order to deal with Scottish administrative problems. Then there are the wider aspects of the criticisms which have been addressed to the Committee, and I want to deal with these since they cover the general principles of this sub-section. I will certainly attempt to deal with them in the spirit indicated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy), that is, the spirit of joining with the Committee and discussing with them—and I trust satisfying them upon—questions which must naturally occur to all of us in connection with legislation which is admittedly so novel as this.
Before I deal with the Amendment, let me, in order to put our deliberations on the right basis, recall the other aspect which I have always had to emphasise in dealing with this sub-section, and that is that we are dealing here, not with a proposal which stands alone on its own merits, but with a proposal which tries to answer the question, "What is the best thing to do in respect of the rules of public assistance when we are agreed, in the main body of the Bill, to make a big change in the law
regarding the basis of transitional payments?" We are not dealing with this subject in a vacuum, as it were. We have to consider what is the minimum—I freely say so—that we have to do with regard to the law of public assistance when we are making this big innovation in the law of transitional payments, in order to avoid flagrant and unjustifiable inequalities which would bring the administration of the law into disregard and which, as I said before, it would be impossible really to enforce.
On that basis, let me turn to the actual Amendment. Though I do not complain of it because I think it is very natural, the Debate to-night has to some extent turned rather upon general principles, and we have heard a certain number of arguments, of great interest in themselves, which nevertheless were not directed to the basic principle of the Bill and of the Clause. As I say, I do not complain of that, because I think we all recognise that this is a Bill which is being passed in less than the usual time, but we also know that the House has approved of that, and approved it for the very good reason that there is something here to be set right, and that it has to be dealt with in the course of the present Session, which is now rapidly drawing to a close.
Let me direct myself to the actual proposals in this Amendment. I believe I shall be able to satisfy the Committee that the proposals ought not to be accepted, for two reasons: in the first place, because they would not do justice in the cases which we have to consider; and, in the second place, because they would be really almost impossible of administration. The purpose of this Amendment, which was very clearly expressed by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Central Nottingham (Mr. O'Connor) was, as I understand it, to limit the concessions made in respect of Poor Law relief to those cases which come up for public assistance and are comparable to the cases which receive assistance under the transitional payments scheme. If I may say so, I welcome that purpose, because that was the purpose of the Clause as I described it to the House in previous stages of the Bill.
10.30 p.m
But I have to suggest to the Committee, for its most mature consideration, that, as a matter of fact this Amendment will achieve no such purpose. It will completely fail to do two things, either to achieve the purpose of limiting concessions to cases which are comparable to the transitional payments cases in the first place, or, secondly, to remedy those gross inequalities which, as I have told the House, must inevitably arise if we do not adopt this Clause unlimited by the present Amendment. Let me deal with the last point first—that is, that gross inequalities, gross injustices would arise under this Amendment if it were passed, just those inequalities which the Subsection was designed to avoid. I said, in speaking to the House on the Clause, that I would deal with this specific proposal, because I knew that it had been put forward in very responsible quarters—the proposal to limit the public assistance concessions to the able-bodied poor. I said that it would work injustice, and for this reason: Take that phrase "the able-bodied poor." Why should you give a concession to the able-bodied, and deny it to those who, by reason of sickness or of old age, are not able-bodied, but in whose cases there may be stronger reasons for the concession than in the case of the able-bodied themselves? I beg the Committee to consider how this Amendment would work in such cases. The able-bodied person who has not been in insurance, when he needed poor relief, would receive it as long as he was able-bodied. As soon as, by reason of old age, he was no longer able-bodied, he would lose the concession. How is it possible to justify that? It would inevitably create injustices and inequalities worse than those which we desire to remove.
It is not only the aged who are affected by the administration of the Poor Law, but that not unnumerous, tragic class, which may be described as the prematurely-aged, those who are worn-out before their time. If we make this concession in order to avoid hardship and a possible measure of injustice to the able-bodied, shall we rule out that large number of cases which are so familiar to all administrators of the Poor Law? We ask the Committee to consider also the case of the cripples. They are certainly not able-bodied but are they any the less de-
serving than the able-bodied poor? Are we to rule them out from the concession? I feel quite sure that if we look at these proposals, we shall recognise at once the difficulty of relating them to the familiar facts of the cases which do not at once leap to the eye. As one who occupies a Ministerial position and has facilities not possessed by private Members for realising the existence of those cases, I freely recognise the value of what has been said by those who moved the Amendment, but I feel confident, now that I have called the attention of the Committee to those cases, that they will not omit them from consideration.
Let me come to the even more curious result which would follow from the passage of this Amendment, and which I am sure the Committee cannot desire to contemplate. It relates to the case of the disabled ex-service man. In the common case, by reason of the fact of his disablement, he is not able to work. He has never been able to re-enter the ranks of insurable employment. I will deal in a moment with the case of those who are able to find employment, but now I want to deal with the case of those who are not able to find employment. Take the case of an ex-service man who has a disablement pension by reason of the fact that he is totally unable to find employment, because he is a chronic tubercular patient. I do not think the Committee can have realised quite clearly that, if this Amendment be passed, the concession which we are giving to the disabled man in general would be refused to the tubercular patient. That is surely not a consequence that the Committee would desire. I have a ease 'al mind of a man who lost both arms in the War. If the Clause were passed in its original form, that man would obtain the benefit of the concession. If the Clause were passed with the Amendment, he would be refused the concession. I do not think that that can be the intention of the Committee.

Mr. O'CONNOR: Would it not be true to say that, in the cases which have been referred to of infirm and disabled persons, the duty lies upon the public assistance committees to give them a greater measure of relief precisely on account of those circumstances?

Sir H. YOUNG: Yes, but that raises the very point which the Minister of Labour and the Parliamentary Secretary
have been explaining throughout—that, unless the concession is given to this class of man with a disablement pension, he is, to the extent of 60 per cent. of his pension, worse off than if the Clause is passed as it stands. The answer to my hon. and learned Friend is that there is no blinking the fact that the result of passing this Amendment would be to refuse that definite advantage, that start over other disabled men to the amount of 50 per cent. of his pension, in the case of the man to whom I have been referring.
I would ask the Committee to consider another class of case—it is necesary to detain the Committee with details, since it is only by considering the way in which the Clause will act that we can arrive at a decision. There is the case of the disabled ex-service men who, in spite of their disablement, in spite of their being in receipt of disability pensions, are able to find employment in insurable occupations, and so to qualify, when they fall out of employment, for transitional payments. Let me ask the Committee to follow one such case, of a kind that we all know—that of a man with a 100 per cent. disability pension, who, owing to the fact that, if I may say so, he is a man of grit and determination, rises superior to the disadvantages to which he is subjected, and manages to get back into employment and become insurable.
If a man of that sort, having obtained employment, should fall out of employment, he gets his insurance benefit, and, when he has exhausted his insurance benefit, he receives transitional payments. As long as he is in receipt of transitional payments, he gets the concessions under the Bill if this Clause is passed without amendment, and when, owing to age and so on, he falls out of transitional payments and goes for public assistance, then, under the unamended Clause, he would continue, as in plain justice he ought to do, to get the allowance which the Bill provides. If, on the other hand, this Amendment were to be passed, it is more than likely that a public assistance committee would feel bound to take the view that he is not an able-bodied man, and, as soon as he loses his transitional payment status, he would lose also the concession under the Bill. That is just the sort of inequality which
the Bill has been drafted, with the most careful consideration, to avoid, and the introduction of this Amendment would re-create in these cases—and they are typical, and not exceptional cases—inequalities and injustices in individual cases which, as we know, place so intolerable a strain upon those who have to administer the law and whom we expect to respect the law.
There is one more consideration that I desire to place before the Committee. I ask them to consider what would happen to the disabled man who is in receipt of a transitional payment if this Amendment were accepted, supposing that he were subjected, as men in that state of health very often are, to recurrent periods of illness. Whenever he was receiving transitional payments, he would be receiving the allowances, and, whenever he went off transitional payments to the receipt of public assistance, he would be denied the allowances. That, obviously, is a consequence which the Committee could not possibly desire to incur. I believe that, if the Committee have done me the honour of following these examples from practical administration, which test the provision which we are now deciding to apply, they will come to the decision that this provision of the Bill is very carefully considered with a view to avoiding the maximum of injustice and to eliminating the maximum of discrepancy. The introduction of the Amendment must inevitably increase both the injustices and die discrepancies which we desire to avoid. In this discussion certain considerations have been once more referred to which I attempted to deal with on the Second Reading and which I should not be justified in detaining the Committee with once more, because they are perhaps more germane to a Second Reading Debate than to a discussion on a specific Amendment, but on this matter of the expenses which this will cast upon local authorities I will say that we are proposing this legislation for a period of nine months. The maximum of £250,000 to which I referred on the Second Reading has to be reduced, because that was the amount for a full year.
I am in entire agreement with my noble Friend the Member for Hastings that this legislation, and in particular this Clause,
is of a tentative character. Its purpose is not to lose time in putting right inequalities and what are now recognised to be hardships while we are deliberating upon the larger Measure. It would have been an easy matter to say that people could put up with this for nine months more but it seemed better at once, when the situation became clear, without waiting for the further deliberation which is necessary for the preperation of the larger Measure, to put right those matters that can be put right. As regards the burden that will fall upon local authorities, I give the Committee this undertaking, that it will be the function of the Government most carefully to watch the effect of this legislation upon the burden cast upon local authorities and, when the time comes—it must be within the period to which I have referred—for the reestablishment of the whole sphere of administration in accordance with the more permanent scheme, to reconsider its effect in order to remove, if they have occurred, any of those evils which have been suggested by Members who have expressed fears. This is not final; it is tentative, and it will receive the most careful watching and attention in the period within which it is to be worked out. We shall gain during that time experience which will be of inestimable value for the preparation of the final scheme. We are satisfied that the actual burden cast upon local authorities will be so small as to be comparatively insignificant. The Amendment would have an effect, precisely contrary to the intentions of the Bill, of working in individual cases, and the cases that we desire most closely to consider, further injustices of a sort which it is the whole purpose of the Bill to remove.

Mr. TRAIN: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir CYRIL COBB: I beg to move, in page 2, line 22, after the word "observe," to insert the words "in any individual case."
The Amendment is really very little more than a drafting Amendment. I was not quite sure from the explanation put forward by the right hon. Gentleman the Minister yesterday exactly what would
be the interpretation of Sub-section (2). The words I propose are in order to make the interpretation quite clear. The right hon. Gentleman was detailing certain classes of cases with which, he said, it was very difficult for the local public assistance committees to deal when those cases were out-relief cases or ordinary public assistance cases, as compared with similar cases in the transitional payment range of cases. He was saying that it would be very difficult, if not impossible, for the local committees to distinguish between the treatment which should be given to transitional payment cases, which, under the Bill, have a statutory right to the three concessions contained in the Clause, and absolutely similar cases which would fall under the ordinary out-relief range of cases.
It is obvious that no local public assistance committee will be able to make the distinction when they get the same set of circumstances in an out-relief case as they have in an ordinary transitional payment case. They will be almost obliged to apply these concessions to a case of the out-relief category. The Minister went on to say that there was a class of case where it would be only right that the public assistance committee should review from the point of view of its merits as to whether it was or was not such a deserving case that it should have the concessions extended to it. Has the local public assistance committee the right in a case of that kind to say, "Although generally we should meet this out-relief case by granting the same concessions to it as we should if it was a transitional payment case, that in this particular instance it is not a deserving ease, and we resume our full right and discretion to refuse the concessions"? That, I understood, was the interpretation which the Minister put upon Subsection (2).
There is another interpretation which can be put upon it. It is that if a local public assistance committee hopes to apply these three concessions to out-relief cases, then the committee will be precluded in any case from making an exception however deserving or undeserving the case may be, and that in any ordinary out-relief class of case, however undeserving it might be, they must in that case give that concession. I want to know what is the right interpretation. Is it that the local public assistance com-
mittee, having once decided that it is going to opt in favour of making a concession, must then make it in every individual case, or may the sub-committee, according to the interpretation of the Minister, make exceptions in those cases in which it does not consider that it is right that concessions should be granted, namely, in undeserving cases? Can the sub-committee assume that discretion which all are supposed to have? I understood from the Minister that the interpretation of Sub-section (2) was that a district sub-committee could always exercise discretion in what it considered to be undeserving cases, and I put this Amendment down in order to see that the actual wording of the Bill implemented the undertaking which the Minister gave to the House yesterday.

Sir H. YOUNG: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for West Fulham (Sir C. Cobb) for raising a most important point, and one on which the Committee will naturally require full explanation and assurances. I am confident that it is the intention of the Committee, as it is of my hon. Friend, that a full discretion of the sort to which he refers shall be reserved to the public assistance committees and to their sub-committees. Let me say at once that I can give him the most positive assurance on this subject. It is not only the intention of the Government, in drafting and introducing the Clause, that that discretion shall be reserved, 'but it is the case that the Clause does actually, in its present form, reserve that discretion to the public assistance committees. My hon. Friend's anxiety is that it should not be the effect of the Clause that a committee, by adopting, either by formal resolution or by its general practice, a practice of making these concessions in Poor Law relief, should therefore debar itself in cases of the sort which he has so rightly described and to which I referred, where the concessions are not merited, from refusing the concessions. I can assure him positively that it is the effect of the Clause that this discretion is reserved to the committees in spite even of a general resolution on their part, to allow the concessions or of an habitual practice to do so.
It would have been my desire to satisfy my hon. Friend of that by accepting his Amendment, but for one thing—that
according to legal advice the Amendment might have the unintended effect of preventing a central public assistance committee from following the useful practice of issuing general instructions by way of guidance to its sub-committees as regards the manner in which they are to act. It would not be the intention of my hon. Friend, this Commitee or the Government, to incur that consequence. Since, therefore, the Clause does actually reserve the liberty to which the hon. Member refers—and on that I can give the most positive assurance—and since the Amendment might have unintended and not useful consequences, I believe the right course will be to leave the Clause as it stands. I trust the Committee and my hon. Friend will be satisfied with the assurances I have given.

Mr. HOROBIN: Did I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that he contemplates a case in which a public assistance committee may pass a general resolution adopting these three concessions for its ordinary Poor Law cases, and that there might be a position in which a known undesirable case, a known waster, who was known to have £300 in his possession, would come in under the general resolution adopted by the public assistance committee, and that the Minister could not say anything to them and could not even insist, not could the auditor insist, upon surcharging them? Am I to understand that if they passed a general resolution and then came across some fellow who by all right and reason ought to be made to pay or put into the house, he would be able to laugh at them and say: "I have £300 in the bank, but I come under this resolution, and you cannot touch me."

Sir H. YOUNG: I am not sure that I understand my hon. Friend's case, but it would be most useful not to consider hypothetical cases, in regard to which one might form wrong conclusions, but to consider the actual effect of the legislation before us. The actual effect of the legislation is this, that whereas there are public assistance committees which now possess discretion in an individual case, the effect of the Clause will be to extend those powers to make these concessions, but will not limit its discretion to refuse the concessions in any case where they think it desirable to do so.

Mr. HOROBIN: I am not speaking of a hypothetical case, but of a particular board of guardians. The Minister in the ordinary way would have something to say to a public assistance committee who treated such a person as I have mentioned as a proper subject for relief. Am I to understand that if the West Ham Public Assistance Committee or the Chester-le-Street Public Assistance Committee passed a general resolution saying that they proposed to exempt £300 from the calculation, that the Minister could not tell them that that was a wrong thing for them to do? [Interruption.] I have to pay rates in West Ham. If the West Ham Public Assistance Committee pass a resolution saying that anyone who has £300 in the bank shall be exempted under this Clause, whether they happen to be good, bad or indifferent, will they be in their strict rights, and will the Minister of Health not be able to say anything to them? If so, it is a most remarkable position.

Sir H. YOUNG: The Minister of Health has no right to say anything to them now. If a public assistance authority exercises their discretion in an individual case, the Minister of Health has no right to interfere in that individual case.

Mr. J. JONES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we are giving to manufacturers in West Ham 75 per cent. of their rates back?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

11.0 pm.

Mr. DINGLE FOOT: There is one part of the Bill about which there is a certain amount of confusion, and I would like to put a point of interpretation to the Minister. I should like the Minister to make clear what discretion is going to be left to the public assistance committees in future in dealing with the question of savings. I understand that they are still left a discretion, but it is an upward discretion as a minimum is laid down in the Clause. The Minister speaking on the Financial Resolution said:
This Resolution and the Bill which will be founded upon it are limited to three types of resources, namely, disability pensions, workmen's compensation, and savings, or, more properly, capital assets. Our object is to get, if we can, a uniformity of prin-
ciple in dealing with these three types. There will be a minimum which will be uniform and general in its application, with discretion above the minimum to be exercised by local authorities on the merits of each individual case."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th November, 1932; col. 354, Vol. 270.]
How is this discretion above the minimum to be exercised in the case of capital savings? The Clause will have to be interpreted by all local authorities. Will the public assistance committee have a discretion in each case to decide what capital assets are to be taken into account? The Clause says:
All money and investments treated as capital assets and taken into account.
Is it within the discretion of a public assistance committee in each case to decide what capital assets ought to be taken into account? It seems to me to be the only loophole in this Clause through which a public assistance committee will still be able to exercise any discretion in regard to savings. The Clause lays down a uniform rather than a minimum scale.

Mr. HUDSON: The hon. Member is very ingenious in having discovered an imaginary loophole. May I inform him that it is au imaginary loophole? [Interruption.] It is perfectly obvious that it does not alter in any way the existing law as to their discretion in the matter.

Mr. FOOT: Does not the hon. Member realise what it means if no discretion is to be left to public assistance committees? Take the case where a man has saved £100, and the public assistance committee say that they are only going to take the income of that £100 into account and estimate it at 5 per cent. They would estimate his income at, roughly, 2s. per week. If this scale is enforced then the public assistance committee instead of taking his income as 2s. per week would take it at 3s. per week, that is taking out the first £25 and 1s. for each subsequent £25 and, therefore, instead of a man getting 13s. 3d. he would only get 12s. 3d. We were told by the Minister of Health that this Bill was not going to discourage thrift, but if you are going to make this uniform and leave no discretion to public assistance committees you are going to discourage thrift. If it is true that no discretion is to be left to public authorities, and that this is not a minimum scale but a uniform scale to be applied in all cases, why were we told on the Financial Resolution that in regard
to the three types of cases it was a minimum?

Mr. HUDSON: The position as I understand it is that where a man has assets of £100 the local authorities are bound to deal with the 100 in accordance with this rule. In exceptional cases where a man's needs justify it, they have discretion to make a greater allowance. When we said that this was a minimum we had in mind the total figure of £300. As I explained in my speech on Wednesday, in exceptional cases, when the merits justified it, the local authority' would be entitled to exercise their discretion above this scale provided they justify each individual case on its merits.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: I know it will be said that the answer has been given several times, but in spite of that I am not satisfied on one point. It is in reference to disability pensions. In Bradford the first 7s. 6d. of a man's pension is not taken into account at all. What I want to be certain about is that they are still able to make that rule.

Sir H. BETTERTON: If it is legal for a particular authority to do what Bradford is doing now, it will be legal when this Bill is passed. At the present time the law is that a public assistance committee must take into account the whole of the disability pension. On the other hand it may set the disabled man's needs against the pension right up to the whole amount, according to the needs in each case. That is the law. What this Bill does is to make it mandatory that 50 per cent. must be ignored. What I want to make perfectly clear with regard to the remaining 50 per cent. is that all discretion in individual cases remains unaltered. That is a most important point which I want the Committee to consider.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: Is it true to say that in the case of Bradford they could not apply the 7s. 6d. generally to all the cases as they do at present, but that there must be exceptional circumstances warranting that in each case?

CLAUSE 2.—(Short title, citation, duration and extent.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Commander COCHRANE: I wish to ask a question as to the duration of the Bill. A good deal has been said about this being a temporary Measure, but that is not made clear in this Clause. It is provided that this Measure is to continue in force as long as the Unemployment Insurance Act of 1930 remains in force and no longer. The Act of 1930, if not renewed, expires at the end of June next year but it would be very undesirable that this Measure should be dragged at the heels of the 1930 Act, if that Act is renewed. Can the Minister, therefore, give the Committee an assurance that it is not his intention to renew the 1930 Act?

Sir H. BETTERTON: My hon. and gallant Friend asks me to give an absolute assurance as to what will happen during next Session. I can only tell him what are my intentions and hopes. As has been said, over and over again, it is my intention to bring in a comprehensive Bill during the coming Session. The present position is that the Act of 1930 comes to an end on 30th June next year. The Anomalies Act comes to an end on 30th June next year. This Measure will also come to an end on 30th June next year. All these Measures have been deliberately framed to expire at the same time. The new Bill, presumably, will incorporate the whole or the greater part of the existing legislation, but whether any part of the 1930 Act remains, or whether it is wholly repealed, depends, of course, on the form of the new Bill. I cannot say anything more than that.

Bill reported, without Amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Mr. LAWSON: We have now come to the final stage of a Bill which has held the attention of the House four days. That is a rather extraordinary circumstance in the case of the average Bill. This Bill was supposed to be simple but it has turned out to be very complicated. It was supposed to give all-round satisfaction but it does not seem to have given any satisfaction at all. The Minister of Labour has added to his own troubles by not having the Law Officers of the Crown here from an early
stage in the proceedings on the Bill. Questions have been put from time to time as to the attitude of the Minister in respect to the soldiers' disablement pensions and compensation. We had the Parliamentary Secretary this afternoon giving us what seemed to be a legal interpretation of the various Clauses of the Bill and as to how they were likely to operate so far as the local authorities were concerned. To-night the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Dingle Foot) has asked the same question that has been asked repeatedly during the whole of the four days, and the hon. and learned Member for Central Nottingham (Mr. O'Connor) gave an interpretation which, it seems, turns out to be no interpretation at all; and this evening we were given an explanation which was long and involved. I submit that it would have been far better if we could have had the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown set down so that we could read it and understand exactly what the Bill means.
When I heard the Parliamentary Secretary explain what was meant by the 50 per cent. I got the expression this evening that these rules were going to stereotype the operations of the administration through the country, but even now what is the position? We are told that the public assistance committees must exclude 50 per cent. of the disablement pensions and compensation. The right hon. Gentleman said that above that there is to be discretion but no committee must make a rule that it will exclude 75 per cent. of the pension or compensation. That would be illegal.

Sir H. BETTERTON: That is the existing law.

Mr. LAWSON: You exclude 75 per cent. now, but what is to be done is that every case is to be taken on its merits and that the public assistance committees can actually, if they wish, exclude 75 per cent. of practically all disabled soldiers' and compensation cases. I want to put this important point to the Minister. While certain committees have made no definite rule, they have decided on the merits of these cases and it has become so much a practice that it is understood in certain areas that they do exclude 75 per cent. and sometimes 100 per cent. in actual practice. Will the practice of areas of that kind be
disturbed by these new regulations? I do not think that it is the right hon. Gentleman's wish that it should be so. I hope that it is not going to be the practice in future. It is my conviction that, over the whole range, the Government will not spend any money over this Bill. The Memorandum to the Financial Resolution said that it would cost the Exchequer about £1,000,000. I wonder what that is based upon. The basis of that calculation has been left alone throughout these Debates. Hon. Gentlemen in various parts of the House are going to the country to say that the Labour party voted against a Bill which will give £1,000,000. I am casting no reflection on the Minister, but when hon. Members have had a little experience of Ministry of Labour actuarial calculations, they will discover that they never had any basis and that the actuary is usually wrong. I should like to find a time when he is really right. He is really asked to do miracles, for there is no basis on which to work. The tendency to stereotype public assistance committees which are actually allowing more than the Bill allows will, in the long run, cost the country nothing, and will probably result in a saving when the whole story is told. I wish to put a point to the Parliamentary Secretary. When he was speaking on the Financial Resolution on the 9th November, he referred to the Minority Report of the Royal Commission, arid said:
I have not had time to give that report the full consideration that it deserves, but the impression I have gained from reading it through is that on most of the subjects it deals with its authors have begged the question, that on a great number of important points the facts they produce are inaccurate, and consequently that the conclusions they draw are misleading."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th November, 1932; col. 462, Vol. 270.]
Is it not a fact that the minority members of the Commission had the same figures from the statistical experts of the Ministry of Labour as the rest of the Commission, and also the same memoranda and the same facts, and drew their own conclusions? I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman on what grounds he made that statement. I really think that in this case his zeal has outrun his
judgment. It is not very often that happens with him when he is on his feet, but here his zeal and, if I may say so, his prejudice, rather got beyond him. Those members served on the Commission for two years, they gave their services like the rest of the members, and they exercised their best judgment, and I really think they deserve better of the representative of the Ministry of Health. They are entitled to some sort of apology for the statement he made. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman will have something to say on that point at a later stage of the proceedings, but if not I shall certainly take the opportunity to go into this point at greater length when this matter again comes up for discussion.
Finally, let me say this. [Interruption.] I make no apology for speaking at this time of night. It was understood clearly, through the usual channels, that we should start the Third Reading at 7.30 to-night, and that other business would be got through. If there has been delay it has come from the Members behind the Government. The point I want to make is that this Bill makes no difference to this fundamental fact, that we are treating the unemployed on the basis of the destitution test. You are applying the machinery and the spirit of the Poor Law to people for whom the Poor Law was never designed. I said 12 months ago, and I say it now, that the further we go along on these lines the worse we get. The use of Poor Law machinery and methods to deal with the unemployed has already created such trouble in the country that the Government have had to give us a new Bill and to start to explain and define where they said they would never explain or define. They have made a change in the Poor Law which would seem to be a small one, but Members supporting the Government have claimed that it is a fundamental change. So the Government find that the using of the Poor Law machinery and the basing of the work of the Poor Law upon the destitution test come back upon them like a boomerang threatening to destroy the Poor Law, which is already overdue for reform, and landing the Government into a quagmire as far as the unemployed are concerned.
11.30 p.m.
I have heard a speech or two tonight which have indicated to me that the hon. Members who delivered them do not understand in the slightest what the unemployed problem is in this country. When the term "waster" is used as it was to-night it shows to my mind a profound ignorance of the real position of affairs. I am afraid the Government are not free from that spirit. These men, in the 20th century, the finest types of our citizens, are to be arraigned, to be investigated, to be questioned; and I do not want the Government to think that when they quote investigations for Income Tax purposes as a parallel they really get away with it. They may get away with it in this House, but they will not get away with it in the country. If there is one thing certain, it is that from the very first there began to grow up a spirit of hostility in what are to me quite unexpected quarters, against the groping and investigating that goes on. A man who is subjected to investigation for purposes of Income Tax thinks himself a very much maltreated citizen, but he is a citizen. The man who is held up as an unemployed man and as a "transitional" man, is held in that position because he is treated as of an inferior type. [Interruption.] Oh, yes he is!

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is out of order, in discussing, on the Third Reading, the merits of the means test. It does not arise on the Third Reading of the Bill.

Mr. LAWSON: I am very much obliged for your Ruling. I am still more obliged for your taking so long to think about it. [HON. MEMBERS "Order!"] I beg Mr. Speaker's pardon. I did not intend to be rude. The hostility to this Bill is caused by the Government treating the unemployed as a destitute type. Masses of the unemployed are being cast on to the local rates, as a certainty, and, generally speaking—

Mr. SPEAKER: If I took a long time in calling the hon. Member to order, that is no reason why he should go on being out of order when I have called his attention to it.

Mr. LAWSON: I thought that it was permissible to put the point, that the objection to this Bill is fundamental, so far as we are concerned, because it continues to treat the unemployed on the basis of destitution.

Mr. SPEAKER: That point was fully made in the Second Reading. The hon. Member can now only speak of what is actually in the Bill, which deals with one or two ways by which needs can be determined.

Mr. LAWSON: One objection that I want to make before I sit down is that the Bill does not deal as thoroughly as it might with the various classes with which it is supposed to deal. It leaves out of calculation and consideration the grievances that have been dealt with in connection with family income. The Parliamentary Secretary missed the point when he dealt with the question of family income. He thoroughly misunderstood the point that while young men find objection to contributing towards their family, their incomes are taken into consideration. There is no change, so far as the youngster is concerned, but there is, so far as the circumstances are concerned. This Bill affects some 1,200,000 people. The striking thing about the great bulk of them is that there is an ever-increasing number of them who are going beyond the 12 months of unemployment. We intend to risk any criticism outside, and to risk the propaganda that may be made against the attitude that we are taking, and to vote against the Bill, because we believe it does nothing to meet the needs of those who have been so hardly punished during the last 12 months. Instead of costing the Government money this Bill will save money, and the last stage of those men will be worse than their first.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I do not desire to detain the House for more than a few moments, but I should like to give the reasons why we oppose the Third Reading. The reason for bringing in the Bill at all is to try to do away with the discontent that there is throughout the length and breadth of the country, and
in that respect it may have the desired effect, but in the long run, so far as we are concerned, it will not meet the issue. The Bill seeks to deal with ex-service men's disability pensions, workmen's compensation, and capital assets, but we do not believe that, taking the whole country, it will bring any advantage to the great mass of these people. When it is remembered that there are 1,100,000 people drawing transitional benefit, one sees that, if each were to receive the proportion that would be provided by the Bill, it would only amount to about 4d, per week, and, even if the number were much smaller, the concession would still be very meagre. We cannot accept the other figure of 1,000,000 which has been given. We view this Bill as a sham and a make-believe; we think that there is nothing really substantial in it. It does not give any concessions to these people as a whole. It is true that in some areas men will gain, but in others they will stand to lose.
The right hon. Gentleman, when replying to the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Dingle Foot), was very skilful in his answer on the question of capital assets. The hon. Member for South Bradford (Mr. Holdsworth) said that in his district they were at the present time exempting 7s. 6d. of each disability pension, and not taking into account anything below that amount, and the Minister was very skilful in his reply. He said that the position was legal now, and would be legal after the passing of the Bill; but he went on to say, in effect, that at present the public assistance authorities may take into account all income. The fact is that

Bradford is defying the law now in exempting the 7s. 6d., and other towns also are defying the law. All these towns are governed by Tory majorities, and the Minister of Health and the Minister of Labour dare not interfere with them. But, now that this Bill has been introduced, it will enable them to interfere with Bradford, and the Bradford public assistance committee will reduce their disability exemption of 7s. 6d. to the amount required by this Bill; and they will be doing so on the instructions of the Minister of Health and the Minister of Labour.

We say that this Bill gives no real concession at all, that it is at the best a sham and a make-believe. There is only one thing that can be said for it, and that is that, as compared with the two previous Measures that were brought in to deal with the unemployed—the one the Order-in-Council inflicting a reduction of benefit and establishing the means test, and the other the Measure introduced by the last Government—this Bill attacks the unemployed less brutally than either of those Measures did. That is the best that can be said for it. It is not a solution of the difficulty. We intend to vote against it because it is not even a partial solution of this great difficulty and we will take every step in opposition to every Bill that does not meet our wishes in respect to the abolition of the means test.

Question put, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

The House divided: Ayes, 252; Noes, 41.

Division No. 365.
AYES.
[11.41 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Bernays, Robert
Caine, G. R. Hall-


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)


Albery, Irving James
Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Campbell, Rear-Adml. G. (Burnley)


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)
Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)
Caporn, Arthur Cecil


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Bird, Sir Robert B.(Wolverh'pton W.)
Christie, James Archibald


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Blaker, Sir Reginald
Clarke, Frank


Apsley, Lord
Blindell, James
Clarry, Reginald George


Aske, Sir Robert William
Borodale, Viscount
Clayton, Dr. George C.


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe
Bossom, A. C.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.


Atholl, Duchess of
Boulton, W. W.
Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey


Atkinson, Cyril
Bower, Lieut-Com. Robert Tatton
Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Conant, R. J. E.


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Cooke, Douglas


Balniel, Lord
Briant, Frank
Cooper, A. Duff


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Broadbent, Colonel John
Copeland, Ida


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks.,Newb'y)
Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.


Bateman, A. L.
Burghiey, Lord
Cranborne, Viscount


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Croom-Johnson, R. P.


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th,C.)
Burnett, John George
Cross, R. H.


Bean, Sir Arthur Shirley
Cadogan, Hon, Edward
Curry, A. C.


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.
Remer, John R.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Renwick, Major Gustav A.


Dickie, John P.
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Doran, Edward
Leckie, J. A.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Drewe, Cedric
Lees-Jones, John
Robinson, John Roland


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Dunglass, Lord
Lennox-Boyd, A, T.
Rosbotham, S. T.


Eales, John Frederick
Levy, Thomas
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Eastwood, John Francis
Liddall, Waiter S.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.


Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Runge, Norah Cecil


Elmley, Viscount
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Mabane, William
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tslde)


Erskine-Boist, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
McCorguodale, M. S.
Salt, Edward W.


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Fraser, Captain Ian
McKeag, William
Savery, Samuel Servington


Fremantle, Sir Francis
McKie, John Hamilton
Scone, Lord


Fuller, Captain A G.
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Gillett, Sir George Masterman
McLean, Major Alan
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Gledhill, Gilbert
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Glossop, C. W. H.
Magnay, Thomas
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Gluckslein, Louis Halle
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-In-F.)


Goff, Sir Park
Manningharn-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Goldie, Noel B.
Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.
Smith-Carinaton, Neville W.


Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Smithers, Waldron


Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Martin, Thomas B.
Somervell, Donald Bradley


Greene, William P. C.
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)
Soper, Richard


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro, W.)
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Stanley. Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Stevenson, James


Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Milne, Charles
Storey, Samuel


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Moreing, Adrian C.
Strauss, Edward A.


Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Morgan, Robert H.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Hanley, Dennis A.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Harris, Sir Percy
Morrison, William Shephard
Sutcliffe, Harold


Hartington, Marquess of
Muirhead, Major A. J.
Templeton, William P.


Hartland, George A.
Munro, Patrick
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Thompson, Luke


Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
O'Connor, Terence James
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P
O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Holdsworth, Herbert
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Train, John


Hope, Capt. Arthur O. J. (Aston)
Palmer, Francis Noel
Turton, Robert Hugh


Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)
Pearson, William G.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Hornby, Frank
Peat, Charles U.
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Horsbrugh, Florence
Penny, Sir George
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Howard, Tom Forrest
Percy, Lord Eustace
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Perkins, Walter R. D.
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Petherick, M.
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bllst'n)
Wells, Sydney Richard


Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada
Weymouth, Viscount


Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Pike, Cecil F.
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)
Procter, Major Henry Adam
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Jamieson, Douglas
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Windsor-Cilve, Lieut.-Colonel George


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Womersley, Walter James


Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Ramsden, E.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'oaks)


Ker, J. Campbell
Rea, Walter Russell



Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Reid. Capt. A. Cunningham-
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Kerr, Hamilton W.
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Sir Frederick Thomson and Lieut.-



Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Colonel Sir Lambert Ward.


NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
McEntee, Valentine L.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Groves, Thomas E.
McGovern, John


Banfield, John William
Grundy, Thomas W.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)


Batey, Joseph
Hall, F. (York. W. R., Normanton)
Milner, Major James


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Parkinson, John Allen


Buchanan, George
Hicks, Ernest George
Price, Gabriel


Cape, Thomas.
Jenkins, Sir William
Tinker, John Joseph


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Jones J. J. (West Ham, Slivertown)
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Jones Morgan (Caerphilly)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Daggar, George
Kirkwood, David,
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhaughton)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Williams Dr. John H. (Lianelly)


Edwards, Charles
Lawson, John James
Williams, Thomas (York. Don Valley)


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Logan, David Gilbert



Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Lunn, William
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Duncan Graham and Mr. John,


Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

VISITING FORCES (BRITISH COMMONWEALTH) BILL [Lords].

Considered in Committee.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

CLASUE 1.—(Provisions with respect to the discipline and internal administration of visiting forces.)

Sir WALTER GREAVES-LORD: I beg to move, in page 2, line 9, to leave out Sub-section (3).
Before I say anything about the Amendment, I want to express my regret that a matter of such importance should come on on the last day but one of the Session, late at night, with a sort of intimation that the Bill must absolutely go through this Session. Why there should be any urgency, and why it should go through this week more than three weeks hence I, for one, cannot see. When one realises that as far as this House is concerned, up to now this is an unexplained Bill and that it certainly contains in Subsection (3) which I am moving to leave out, conditions against which this country has most carefully guarded for the last 300 years—when these conditions were not guarded against, we had a revolution as a, result—I think it is a little hard to ask this Committee at midnight, two days before the end of the Session, to pass this Bill and do it almost in such a way as to suggest that it really needs no discussion at all.
The purpose of the Bill, as far as the first Clause is concerned, appears on the face of it to be a simple one, and so it is in the main. It is to give to visiting forces from the Dominions to this country the right to hold courts and to deal with the discipline and internal administration of those forces, according to the law of the part of the Commonwealth from which those forces come. That, in itself, may sound perfectly innocent, and so it would be if there were proper safeguards for the due administration of that jurisdiction. Those proper safeguards have always been recognised in this country as being a right of appeal to the civil courts against any wrong-user of that jurisdiction. So far from that being so, having given this jurisdiction, we proceed in Subsection (3) to make it quite impossible for the courts of this country to inquire into the exercise of that jurisdiction, except as to one point, namely, as to whether
the man who is dealt with by court-martial is a member of the forces who have submitted him to court-martial. It comes to this: We say to the visiting forces that they may arraign a man before a court-martial with regard to matters of discipline or internal administration, the court-martial may sit, the man may be sentenced to imprisonment or even to penal servitude, and it may be that the court-martial exceeds its jurisdiction or does something it has no jurisdiction to do at all. The man may be put in a British prison, and while he is there he will be entirely deprived of the ordinary right of a British citizen to appeal to the civil courts of this country against the excess or wrong exercise of jurisdiction.
Our forefathers fought for the right to appeal to the civil courts, and it is a right that has always been carefully safeguarded. Ever since this country thought it necessary to adopt the procedure of habeas corpus, that has certainly been one of our most jealously-guarded rights. If a man is dealt with here by a military tribunal and is a member of an English force, he has always the right to question that military tribunal's exercise of jurisdiction. He may question it in more than one way. He may question it by writ of certiorari, calling upon the tribunal to bring up the conviction in order that it may be quashed as being in excess of jurisdiction. He may question it by suing by writ of habeas corpus. He may, if he chooses sue the commanding officer for wrongful imprisonment.. In any one of these three cases the High Court will inquire into the exercise of jurisdiction, and if it finds that the jurisdiction has been wrongfully exercised, the man is entitled to his remedy. If it is for a writ of certiorari or a writ of habeas corpus he is entitled to be set at liberty, but if he sues for damages he is entitled to damages from the man who has wrongfully imprisoned him. Under this Bill, if it passes, the position is this, that directly he tries to exercise any one of these remedies he is met by Sub-section (3), under which the civil court has to assume (1) that the service court was properly formed, and (2) that it acted according to its regular rules. Then—a thing which is wholly unprecedented in our law—the civil court has to assume that the special court, upon which a limited jurisdiction only is conferred, has acted within that juris-
diction and that the civil court is absolutely debarred from inquiring as to whether that jurisdiction has or has not been rightly exercised. In other words, having limited the jurisdiction, we refuse to our own courts and to our own citizens—it is our own citizens who will be being dealt with—the right to raise in our courts the question whether that limited jurisdiction has been exceeded or not.
12 m.
The whole principle of the guardianship of liberty certainly since the Revolution, has been to see to it that military courts are under the supervision of the civil courts, and we have to be extremely careful to preserve for every man his right of appeal to the civil courts. Here, it is taken away. I understand that it is said that this has been done by arrangement with the Dominions. I cannot think that the Dominions can have carefully considered what they are doing if they have made any such arrangement. I cannot understand that any Dominion Government has a right to barter away, for that is what this is doing, the liberty of British citizens in other parts of the world. If it be that this is an arrangement, then it is tantamount to a Dominion Government saying to us: "We desire you to give us the right to imprison our subjects within the territory of the mother country and to deprive them of any right of questioning that imprisonment in the mother country. It may be said that they have the right of appeal within their own Colony, but what good is it to a man who may be sentenced to two years imprisonment, who is put in an English prison, to say that through friends in Australia or Canada he has a remedy. We are saying for the first time for 300 years that we will give someone the right to imprison a British citizen in a British prison, but that as a British citizen he shall not exercise his right to get the protection of our civil courts, a right to which he is entitled. That is not an example to set the world in these days. We have prided ourselves on our love of liberty, but as this is a matter of the liberty of the subject, not of spending money, the benches of the Labour party are almost empty. I hope the public will notice the extent to which they defend the liberties of the people. I have always thought that this House was the guardian of
British liberties, but if it is going to allow a revolutionary Measure of this kind to go through and if the Opposition is so pusillanimous as not to discuss it, it is a very ill day for this country and a great departure from the traditions of the past when liberty was preserved in this land and we were able to remain a free people.

Mr. EALES: My justification for rising to support the Amendment, especially as this is the first time I have had the honour of addressing the House, is that the Sub-section raises a question of the greatest importance to the people of this country. May I remind hon. Members of the position of courts martial? It is necessary to appreciate this in order to understand the effect of this Sub-section. A considerable amount of misconception exists as to the powers of courts martial. The civil courts of this country for many years have been very jealous to protect the liberty of the subject against any extreme use of their powers by courts martial, and one or two principles have been so well established as to be said to be part of the law of the land. Professor Dicey in his well-known book on "Law and the Constitution" says:
If a court martial exceeds its jurisdiction or an officer, whether acting by court martial or not, does any act unauthorised by law, the action of the court or the officer is subject to the supervision of the courts.
We find the matter put with equal plainness by Lord Haldane in his article on "The Royal Forces" in "The Laws of England" where he says quite clearly:
Members of courts martial and naval and military authorities generally are responsible as individuals to any person injured by reason of their having acted, either without, or in excess of their jurisdiction.
The same principle was stated as recently as 1919 in this country, in these terms:
If the acts of military tribunals or officers with respect to military discipline be insusceptible to supervision by the civil courts, then the gravest consequences might ensue. It can scarcely be that military men are, alone, the interpreters of military law. If so, they become above the civil law and to so hold, would he to exclude the courts from one of their most important and beneficent functions. The judges are the interpreters of the law. The military law is a part of the law of the realm. It rests on a statutory basis. The soldier is a person subject to two sets of laws, the military law and the civil law.
The learned judge who delivered that judgment stated the principle in this form:
It seems to me, as a matter of principle, that the liberty of a soldier should not be infringed, nor should his person be invaded, save in so far as that infringement or invasion is justified by either the law military or the law civil and the question of justification should ultimately be determined by the ordinary courts of law. It is for those courts to determine the extent of the military jurisdiction given to military tribunals and officers by the enactments of Parliament.
Having pointed out what must be conceded to be the general principle of our law with regard to courts martial, let us see what this Sub-section provides. It provides, with regard to any member of visiting forces of the British Commonwealth coming to this country, that if sentence has been passed upon such member, whether within or without the United Kingdom, by a service court of that part of the Commonwealth to which he belongs, then, for the purpose of any legal proceedings within the United Kingdom, first, the court shall be deemed to have been properly constituted—whether properly constituted or not—second, its proceedings shall be deemed to have been regularly conducted; third, the sentence shall be deemed to be within the jurisdiction of the court and in accordance with the law of that part of the Commonwealth; fourth, if executed according to the tenor thereof, it shall be deemed to have been lawfully executed; fifth and last, if the unfortunate member of a visiting force, having been dealt with by a tribunal improperly constituted or by proceedings irregularly conducted, is then detained in custody, that custody shall be deemed to be legal custody. I sincerely hope that the Committee will regard this as a grave attack upon the liberty of the subject and a matter which ought to be thoroughly and seriously considered; and that hon. Members will agree that proper time ought to be given for its discussion, instead of having it brought before the House in Committee at this hour of the night.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Boyd Merriman): I am sure the Committee wish to congratulate my hon. and learned Friend upon his first speech in the House of Commons and condole with him on the fact that he has had to make that very
attractive speech at this time of night. If I thought that this Sub-section, which I am going to ask the Committee to approve, repealed Magna Charta or tore up the Habeas Corpus Act., I should not be inviting the Committee to reject this Amendment. But its scope is very limited and it does not, I think, involve any of the consequences indicated by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Norwood (Sir W. Greaves-Lord). We are dealing here with detachments of the forces of self-governing Dominions, who, with the consent of their own Governments and at the request of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom are visiting this country—as for example a contingent from a Canadian regiment who have come here to take part in a military tattoo. The idea is that they shall carry their own law with them when they come here and, correspondingly, that our people shall carry our law with them when they go on similar visits to any of the self-governing Dominions. It is said that we are infringing the rights of British citizens and denying them access to the courts. It is true that these visitors are British citizens in the sense that they are citizens of the British Commonwealth of Nations, but they are also citizens of Canada or Australia or whatever may be the self-governing Dominion to which they belong. I cannot help thinking that the argument which has been addressed to the Committee overlooks two very important factors. One is that the countries from which these detachments may come, are absolutely self-governing and the other is that those Dominions have no less zeal than we have in this country and in the House of Commons, for maintaining the liberty of the subject. It is said that we are overruling the right of any court in this country to question the jurisdiction of a subordinate tribunal, like a court martial to try and sentence men. It is quite true that that is the effect of this Clause. The idea is that the courts in this country should not be permitted to interfere in that jurisdiction to try those particular men. When it is said that our courts ought to be given such power, do let it be remembered that the question of whether a service tribunal, which Canadian or Australian forces bring with them here, has jurisdiction to try a particular soldier depends, not on
the law of this country but on the law of the country from which they come. It is under their own Army Act, or Air Force Act, or Naval Discipline Act, as the case may be, that the man is tried.

Sir W. GREAVES-LORD: The jurisdiction that they get to try their men here is from this Measure and from this Measure only, as I understand the Bill.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: They have a perfect right, just as we have, to ordain that their own courts, however they choose to constitute them, shall try their own men, wherever they like. We also have a right to say that we recognise their doing so. But, first and last, these men are being tried under their own law. To argue that our courts, our King's Bench Division, are to have the right to say whether that jurisdiction is being infringed or not, involves the consequence—and this proposition cannot be denied—that our courts are to be asked to interpret Dominion law. It may be easy or it may he difficult, but it is being asked to interpret Dominion Law. Suppose it is said that there is no jurisdiction to pass a particular sentence. That involves one or both of two things: either that the information has not been properly laid under the law under which the man is tried, or that the offence with which he has been charged does not warrant the particular sentence which has been passed. Those two things, or either of them, are matters not of the law of England but of the law of the Dominion from which the man comes. That law has to be proved as a matter of fact, before any court in this country has a right to act.
The whole scheme of this is simply that the Dominion from which that man comes shall provide the courts to which a man who says that his own law has been infringed should be able to appeal in order to establish his rights. I can assure the Committee that the Government have no wish whatever to detract from the cardinal principle that no British citizen is to forfeit his liberty, except according to law. The law in this case is the law of the Dominion from which the man comes and of which he is a citizen. The Bill provides that the law is to be interpreted not by the courts of this country but by the courts to which he owes allegiance.
His mere presence in this country for a very special reason and in very special circumstances shall neither entitle nor oblige the courts of this country to usurp to themselves, or at any rate to assume, the office which can perfectly well be performed by the courts of the country from which the man comes. I assure the Committee that there is nothing more in the Clause than that, and that it is an exaggeration to talk as if this was an infringement of the Habeas Corpus Act.

Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS: I did not take any part in this Debate before, because I was waiting to hear what the hon. and learned Gentleman was going to say with regard to the matter. His excuse seems to be that it is only a little matter. I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's statement with regard to the authority of Dominion courts-martial in this country. They only have authority to sit as courts and try cases here by virtue of Clause 1 of this Bill. No Dominion has any right to send a court to this country and to administer justice here, unless it gets authority from the Crown, any more than any foreign State would have the right to do the same thing. The question to which objection is raised is not one of Dominion law, as I understand it; it is a question of English law, namely, whether a man is rightly imprisoned in this country. That is not Dominion law, but English law. It may be necessary to inquire into the facts which led to his imprisonment, and that inquiry may raise a question of Dominion law, but the matter with which the liberty of the subject is concerned is the imprisonment which takes place in this country, and that is the matter with which the Mover of the Amendment is concerned.
No right is given under this Clause, as it stands, for anybody who believes himself to be wrongly imprisoned in this country to raise that question before any court. That is certainly something, but the learned Solicitor-General says: "Oh, but it is difficult, because there is Dominion law." There is a very simple solution—proceed by Habeas Corpus to the court which is the appellant court to the Dominions, and which is perfectly familiar with the administration of Dominion law. They give the right to appeal direct to the Privy Council to
raise the matter, and to solve the whole difficulty. I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to put in a provision by which, in such cases, an appeal by habeas corpus can be carried to the Privy Council.

Mr. THORP: I did not intend to intervene in this Debate at this late hour, but there is one point which I think has been overlooked by the learned Solicitor-General, That' point is explained if one takes a hypothetical case. Assume that one of the visiting troops has happened to be prosecuted before the Assizes, or before the Central Criminal Court, and is tried before one of His Majesty's Judges and is acquitted. He, having been acquitted, it would be contrary to the whole of our procedure that he should be tried again. Perchance he may be indicted for the same offence before one of these tribunals, and the courts who acquitted him could not possibly come to his rescue and get him out of prison, or relieve him of a sentence which everybody agreed was unjustified.
One has only to think of that hypothetical case. It is all very well for the Government to say that that sort of thing will not happen; this Committee ought to say that it might happen and that we will not allow it to happen. That is the reason why I think that my hon. and learned Friend should insist that this Sob-section be omitted. Otherwise we might find that people who have been acquitted once by a court which we recognise, may nevertheless be indicted before some tribunal set up in this country, and would be imprisoned in this country, and that our courts could not come to their assistance. That is not only contrary to the law of this country; it is contrary to the law of the whole of the Empire, is contrary to the principles of justice, and ought not to be allowed.

Mr. KINGSLEY GRIFFITH: As a very junior member of the legal profession, I could not help being impressed with the very great weight of legal authority exhibited in the previous speeches. The argument upon which the learned Solicitor-General seemed principally to rely was that there was an inconvenience in the matter of dealing with the law of the Dominions in this country. That argument bas been met in various ways.
Surely he will realise that it is not an insuperable difficulty. Cases under a different law from oar own are being dealt with in the courts every day. Again and again expert evidence is brought before the court to point out what is the law applicable to the situation, and that would not be British law.
I particularly hoped to hear from the learned Solicitor-General a word to indicate in some way what was the reason for this Bill. No hon. Member, speaking upon a subject like this, has a desire to embarrass the Government in making the best possible, and the most amicable, arrangements with the Dominions, but if there is some outstanding case where inconvenience or injustice has been caused by this law not being in existence, and if something like that had been put before us, we should have understood the object of the Bill better. We have not been told anything.

The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that the hon. Member is getting back to a Second Reading speech.

Mr. GRIFFITH: I will not pursue the matter, if I am getting beyond the bounds of order. Perhaps I should not have strayed there, had the learned Solicitor-General told us more about the Bill. It was a very dangerous line of argument for him to take, to say that in any matter which concerns the liberty of the subject the Bill was not repealing habeas corpus and was not abolishing Magna Charta. Liberty has to be defined in small things as well as great. It has been said that the price of liberty is perpetual vigilance. I am very glad that vigilance of that kind has been shown to-night in regard to this Bill, and even at this late hour. The principle for which we stand is not a small thing; it is that British civilian justice should ultimately prevail upon British soil. I think that that is something that is well worthy of our consideration.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Duff Cooper): The Committee is under some misapprehension, owing to the fact that the Second Reading of the Bill passed without Debate. No general information was given on it. In two sentences, I shall attempt to give that general explanation, if I be not out of order. Hitherto, the visiting forces in this country had the
ordinary law of the country applied to them. They came under the Army Annual Act and the Navy Discipline Act. These Acts no longer apply to visiting forces from those Dominions which have adopted the Statute of Westminster, and therefore it is necessary to pass a Bill of this sort in order to make the law of the Dominions apply to members of Dominion forces when visiting this country. That is the reason for the Bill.
Speaking after many lawyers, and with a great sense of diffidence, I would say that it seems to me that the problem is not really such as it has been represented to the Committee. This Bill cannot affect the liberty of one British subject living in this country. It cannot affect in any way the liberty of any British subject in any Dominion or colony which has not adopted the Statute of Westminster. Many hon. Members of this House gravely doubted the wisdom of the Statute of Westminster, but when that Statute met with the approval of Parliament, we deliberately adopted the attitude that those Dominions were henceforth entirely self-governing, and that, so far as rights hitherto enjoyed by British subjects living in those Dominions are concerned, it will in future be their own funeral to look after those rights and to see that they are preserved. Therefore, when members of the British Empire coming from South Africa visit this country, it will be for them and for their own nation to look after their liberty. They will be in the same position as members of a foreign force visiting this country.
Our position will be to make sure that anybody brought up before one of their courts-martial is actually subject to that jurisdiction. The legislation is passed in a foreign country, for the visiting forces from that country, and it is plainly not our business to interfere when they are carrying out their own law. I am surprised at the objection that comes from the Liberal benches; if some of those hon. Gentlemen had objected to the Statute of Westminster I should have understood this better, but I submit that it is only logical that we should take this further step, which is a corollary of the original step, and that we should say that members of visiting forces should be liable to the laws of their own Dominions and should have no advantage over for-
eigners in applying to British courts. Our duty is simply to make sure that their own courts have jurisdiction over them. I feel sure that we can rely upon our fellow-subjects in other Dominions to protect their own ancient rights of habeas corpus and Magna Charta.
That is the position of the Bill, which has been agreed to by the Dominions, who are passing similar Acts to put our visiting forces in the same position. South Africa has already actually passed an Act which, I understand, is in exactly similar words to this Bill. We should go back on the undertaking that we gave to the Dominions if we altered this Bill, and obviously much time and trouble would be lost if a Measure which has already passed through a number of stages did not become law this Session.

12.30 p.m.

Mr. CROOM-JOHNSON: The ordinary foreigner visiting this country is entitled to seek the protection of our laws. I do not in the least follow the Financial Secretary to the War Office in the observation which he has made in support of this Bill. In common with my hon. and learned Friends around me, I cannot help thinking that it is a subject of regret that a matter of so much importance should be debated at this time of night. It may be that there are very good reasons indeed, having regard to the effect of the Statute of Westminster, why we should give this particular protection to the Forces of the Dominions visiting this country. I cannot help feeling, at the same time, that it would be very much better if this important constitutional matter were debated at some more convenient time when Members of this House would have the opportunity of considering it in all its bearings. Having said that much, I would like to remind the hon. and learned Member that this problem is not altogether a new one. I was for a time—less than 12 months—responsible in a humble capacity in the Judge Advocate General's Department for looking into some of these matters.
When the American Forces came to this country this very problem had to be dealt with very largely in the way provided in this Bill. After all, that was during war time, and this country is suffering already from a number of things introduced during war time to which we would like to say good-bye. I
am rather anxious that we should not, in a moment like this, fasten upon ourselves something which is advocated merely because it worked very well during an emergency. I know it worked very well so far as the American Forces were concerned, but there were here for only a short time, and they went speedily across the seas to France where they were engaged in combating the common foe. I do appeal to the Government. There seems to be no great urgency, and it does seem to me to be a matter worthy of greater consideration than it can have to-night. Although I should be prepared from my past experience to give support to some such provision as this, I am not at all convinced that the matter has been worked out in all its details. I hope the Government will see that we have a further opportunity of dealing with the matter more effectively.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Captain Margesson): I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
There have been appeals made to the Government from all parts of the Committee that further time should be given for the consideration of the matter now before the House. The Government never wish to dragoon the Committee, particularly their own supporters, at a late hour. This Order will be put down as the first Order to-morrow.

Mr. LANSBURY: I would like to know from the Patronage Secretary how much time in the early part of the day is likely to be given to this Bill. We have a Motion on the Paper which it is proposed to discuss to-morrow and, from the large number of hon. and learned Gentlemen who were rising to their feet at this hour of the morning, I am sure that there will be still a larger number, and the speeches will be of greater length, at a more reasonable hour. I think we had better see it through this morning and get it done. A bargain is a bargain in this Committee. The Opposition have not attempted to use the power that an Opposition might possess in regard to business during these last few days. There is an honourable understanding as to the business to be taken to-morrow. This Bill is highly contentious, and, if it is adjourned until
to-morrow, there will be no time for our Motion at all. I think that that would be an abuse of the power of the majority. I am, therefore, protesting against the Motion to report Progress unless we can get some sort of assurance as to how much time is to be given to this Bill to-morrow.

Captain MARGESSON: The last thing I would wish to do is to act unfairly. The Leader of the Opposition has treated the Government all through this Parliament with the greatest consideration and, indeed, helpfulness. I would just remind him that when the statement of business was made by the Prime Minister last Thursday it was specifically announced that the remaining time on Wednesday would be allowed to the Opposition for their Motion. I would' ask him not to make the assertion that the Government are breaking their bargain. The bargain is that we must first dispose of Government business tomorrow. There has been a certain discussion this evening, and a certain number of speeches. There are obviously other hon. and learned Members who have other points to make, but I cannot believe that a great deal of time will be occupied. There will be no desire to obstruct. On a point of that kind, I can make no hard and fast bargain; yet I am equally satisfied that the Committee as a whole do not wish to upset the arrangement.

Mr. LANSBURY: It is quite true that the Government business was to be finished first, but it is equally true that these Bills were considered as non-contentious. It has been discovered by the legal gentlemen whose duty it is to discover these things—[Interruption.] Hon. and learned Gentlemen say that something should be done. The Solicitor-General says that something else should he done. I am a layman in these matters, and what is a layman like me to do. Ordinary people may get in the cart. The point is that when we made this arrangement we all thought that the Government business to-morrow would not be highly contentious. If this business gets going to-morrow in the fashion it has started this evening, there will be no discussion on secondary education. I only want to safeguard that. The last statement of the Patronage Secretary was
received with approval by the Committee, and I think my friends and I will depend on the decency and generosity of the Committee to see us through.

Sir W. GREAVES-LORD: May I first of all thank the Patronage Secretary for the way in which he has met us. After what has been said, we shall certainly do all we can to keep the discussion within reasonable limits and with due regard to the importance of the subject. May I also express my pleasure at the fact that the Leader of the Opposition has at last discovered that it is the duty and the privilege of lawyers to defend liberty.

Mr. LANSBURY: Lord help liberty!

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE BILL [Lords].

Considered in Committee.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Appeals from decisions of official referees.)

Mr. CROOM-JOHNSON: I beg to move, in page 1, line 14, to leave out the words "by special case."
Clause 1 of this Bill is aimed at removing something which has for some time been occupying the attention of those who practise in the courts. I am not sure that it is quite understood by the Committee that official referees are, as it were, assistant judges to decide matters of considerable complexity and great importance, which are considered to have too much detail in them to merit the attention of a High Court judge. Hitherto it has been the practice for appeals from them to go, first of all, to a Division Court of the King's Bench Division, from that to the Court of Appeal, and, if the party is still dissatisfied, from the Court of Appeal the matter can go still further to the House of Lords. It has been thought for a long time that this system is expensive and unnecessary and that it is desirable that the proceedings should be shortened. In so far as this Clause proposes to shorten matters
by cutting out the Divisional Court, as it has been cut out in other matters in recent years, the Clause is on the right lines. But the Clause goes further and proposes that the appeal shall be only an appeal on a question of law. Speaking for myself, and having regard to the way in which the official referees discharge their duties, the long time which these cases take and the expense, I am not averse to such a provision.
The Clause as drafted, however, contains what is a very serious blot, namely, that the appeal shall only be an appeal in the form of a case stated which shall go to the Court of Appeal. Those of us who have had experience of cases stated by various courts know that it very often means considerable delay, often adds enormously to the expense, and that it not infrequently happens that through some mistake or some omission in the statement of the case the point of law cannot be raised properly. It seems to us that to limit appeals on matters which come before the official referees, very often involving matters of great complexity and considerable sums, to appeals on a case stated is not on the right lines. The Amendment, therefore, is one which will leave the appeal still an appeal on a question of law, but which will not oblige the official referee, whose duties are already onerous if properly discharged, to state his finding in the form of a special case. Therefore, what is proposed is that the words "by special case" shall be left out of the Clause, thus leaving parties who desire to appeal to the Court of Appeal untramelled by having the matter raised in the form of a special case. As the matter has already been considered and having regard to the lateness of the hour, I do not desire to dilate upon it further.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I propose to ask the Committee to accept the Amendment. In doing so, may I make it perfectly clear that it is upon the understanding that the appeal is to be on a point of law only, and, if Amendments are moved to delete those words, I shall be compelled to oppose them.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. THORP: I beg to move, in page 1, line 16, to leave out the words "on a point of law."
I move this Amendment in spite of the menace of the Solicitor-Generales. I think I am right in saying that this provision will introduce an entirely new principle into the law of this country. I know of no court of unlimited jurisdiction from which there is no general right of appeal. It is all very well to say that it is an advantage if there are not many appeals but that argument can be used both ways. If there are many appeals from the official referee, then the importance of those appeals being allowed to remain is shown by the value of the right of appeal; if there are not many appeals from the official referee, then the courts cannot be overloaded by allowing persons who consider themselves aggrieved to question the decision of the official referee. In my opinion, this proposal puts the official referee into an extraordinary position as compared with that of a judge of the High Court. We are all accustomed to the idea that the judgment of a judge of the High Court is subject to an appeal on a point of law or fact. But, as my hon. and learned Friend who just spoke has pointed out, the official referees, who are a part of the High Court of Justice, have unlimited jurisdiction. It is an absurd provision by which you can have a case involving £50 tried by a judge of the High Court and you can appeal to the Court of Appeal with or without his leave and from thence to the House of Lords, whereas you may have a case before the official referee involving £5,000 and yet have less right of appeal from his decision than from that of a High Court judge.
I do not wish to draw invidious comparisons—it would not be right for me to do so—but is there any ground for supposing that the official referee is less likely to make a mistake than a judge of the High Court? Of course, that seems to follow quite naturally, but, in my submission, this point is put forward on an entirely wrong conception of an official referee. The official referees are sometimes regarded as being in the nature of arbitrators, because, if the parties like to consent to a case being sent to them they can do so, or, if they like to consent to a case being sent to an arbitrator, they can do that. If the parties choose to refer their disputes to a particular tribunal, they are not in a position to complain if they happen to be dissatisfied with the decision, but the
majority of cases that go to an official referee go in spite of the wishes of one or other, and sometimes both, of the parties. It may quite easily happen that a case comes before a judge of the High Court who says: "This will involve a long inquiry, and, therefore, whether you like it or not, I am going to send it to an official referee." The moment he does that, in comes this Clause, the result of which is that the litigant has no right of appeal. That judge has it in his power to send the case to the official referee and debar the litigant from any right of appeal on questions of fact.
Again, it may be said that the position of the official referee is somewhat analogous to the position of a county court judge, but there is a very great difference. It is true that there is no right of appeal on questions of fact from a county court judge, but, at the same time, the county court judge, at the time that that provision was made had jurisdiction only under £20 in small debt cases, and that has been increased until, in certain cases, they have unlimited jurisdiction. But that answer cannot be put forward. The real answer is that the proper course is to adopt the general right of appeal from a county court judge instead of limiting the general right of appeal from an official referee. It is now very late, and the same observations apply in regard to this Bill as applied to the last Bill. At the same time, I do ask the Committee to hesitate before denying to people the right of appeal in this light-hearted manner. Many of us consider that inroads are being made in this class of legislation on rights and privileges that people have had in the past, and I ask the Committee not to reject my Amendment, in order that people may have a general right of appeal from an official referee just as they would have from a judge of the High Court.

Dr. PETERS: I want to support the Amendment. Not only are you by this Bill going to place an official referee in a superior position to that of a high court judge, who may have appointed him, but you are actually going to deprive the ordinary litigant of his right of appeal on points of fact. That seems to me to be an entirely new principle, and I want to know on what grounds we in this House can assume to place, as the final arbiter of fact, responsibility on any one in-
dividual. I want to suggest that there may very well be cases, especially coming under Section 89 of the Act of 1925, where not the whole matter is referred to an official referee but only a part of some special issue. Assuming, then, there is some misdirection of the official referee, or a wrong construing of facts, or even some new facts arising after he has dealt with the matter, how can you get a new trial, or correct in any way the misdirection, if there is to be no appeal, either to a divisional court or to an appeal court? We are here depriving litigants of the right of appeal. As a solicitor engaged in these matters from time to time, I know that it makes the position exceedingly difficult for any lawyer to advise his clients What to do if a judge, as he can under Section 89 of the Act, compel the case under statute to be sent to an official referee. One would possibly, in certain circumstances, even withdraw the case and then go to arbitration under the Arbitration Act. I do strongly protest not only against a Measure of this kind being brought in at this late hour, but also to its being put in such an innocent fashion into a Bill wrapped up with other things which will actually deprive the litigants of this country of their right of appeal on points of fact. I am certain that it is not doing justice to our people.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The hon. and learned Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Thorp) and the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Dr. Peters) are., of course, quite right in saying that this proposal is making a change in the law, but I would like the Committee to understand that the scope within which it is made is very limited indeed.

Mr. LYONS: The same explanation as last time—"only a little one!"

1.0 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I was just going to say that this involved the risk of being accused of making the same excuse. But, nevertheless, it is quite valid. We are dealing here, first of all, not with arbitration generally, or even with a case where a matter is sent by the court to a special referee, but simply with a particular class of case sent to one of the three official referees of the court—cases which are sent under a, single Section of the Act of 1925. Now,
the cases dealt with under that Section, roughly speaking, come under two headings. First of all, there are those which can be sent compulsorily, and next there are those which can be sent by consent of the parties. Those which can be sent compulsorily are types of cases where there are elaborate accounts to be examined for which the ordinary court has not the machinery, or where a prolonged examination of documents or matters of scientific investigation is necessary. As the Act itself says, they are referred because the court is not qualified to deal with them. Of course, it is obvious to Members of the Committee that if they are sent by the judge of the first instance to an official referee because the judge thinks he is unable to deal with the matter owing to its technicalities, or to the mass of detail, the court of appeal would be in precisely the same difficulty as the judge. As to the rest, apart from that very special type of case which is sent to the official referee by order, the other matters which go to the official referee are by consent of the parties.
I understood the hon. and learned Member for Nelson and Colne to say that that was a very small minority, and that the vast bulk of matters came under the other head. My information is exactly opposite. It is that the great majority of the cases which go to the official referee are by order at the consent of the parties. If that be so, the parties have the remedy in their own bands. It will still be the case that references to the official referee, except in technical matters, will be by consent of the parties. If this Clause goes through, they will be consenting with their eyes open to a reference to a particular tribunal, one of three men, with regard to whom they know there will be an appeal on law and no appeal on fact. They need not go to him. They can ask the court to appoint a special referee, and then this Act will not apply. They are free to go before an arbitrator on whom they both can rely. Except for technical cases, it is only in the case where the parties have themselves consented that the court shall make an order for it to go to the official referee, that they voluntarily debar themselves from the right of appeal except upon points
of law. It is a change which is designed to have one particular object, which is to save judicial time and to introduce at any rate one element of economy into litigation.

Mr. THORP: Economy for whom?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Economy for the litigant.

Mr. LYONS: Has anybody ever asked for this change?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that this certainly has not been done out of the blue. There has been a very definite demand for it in certain quarters, not least, I think, among some of His Majesty's Judges.

Mr. THORP: From unsuccessful litigants?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I really cannot say one way or the other. After all, we have certain responsibilities in this matter, and if we are convinced in our minds that it will effect an economy for litigants, surely we can exercise our own discretion. At present, both on law and on fact, there is an appeal from the official referee, first to the Divisional Court, and from that to the Court, of Appeal, and from that to the House of Lords. This proposes to abolish the appeal to the Divisional Court altogether and to substitute for that an appeal only to the Court of Appeal, and, in sending the appeal only to the Court of Appeal, to rely on this special tribunal to decide the facts properly. In the majority of cases it is acting with the consent of the parties and the court can limit the appeal to a question of law. I say quite frankly that if the proposal were reversed and the Court of Appeal were to be made an appeal in the first instance on questions of fact, it would be impossible to go on with the Bill. A great deal of judicial time at present is taken in the Divisional Court with these appeals. If that time were transferred from the Divisional Court to the Court of Appeal the thing would be unworkable. I therefore ask the Committee to reject the Amendment.

Mr. JANNER: Perhaps the Solicitor-General would consider, in view of the fact that in his opinion most
of the cases to be considered under this particular Clause would be those that go to the referee by consent, introducing at a later stage an Amendment which would incorporate merely these cases. When questions of fact have to be decided and they are taken to experts, it is known that it is the customary practice of the courts, that at least on occasions the opinions of the experts are over-ruled by the courts themselves after having received those expert decisions. I have in mind a case in which two referees gave opinions on professional lines, and when this matter came before the courts other professional evidence was produced. It is a matter for the litigants themselves to decide whether they want an appeal on a matter of fact as well as whether they want an appeal on a question of law. If they both consented that a question of fact should be decided by a referee, it would be obvious that they would be expected to accept the opinion of the referee. I submit that the Clause should be amended so as to include merely those who consent, so as to give the other litigants the opportunity—having deprived them of an intermediate course—to put their cases again before the Court of Appeal.

Mr. CAPORN: I would like to appeal to the Solicitor-General to give this matter a little further consideration, especially for the reason of the saving of judicial time. At the present moment, official referees are not overworked but His Majesty's judges are. I understand that one of the objects of the Bill is to relieve the High Court and to encourage litigants to go to the official referee. In my view, if this Amendment is not accepted, this Bill will have exactly the opposite effect. At the present time one can advise a client to consent to the taking of a case of considerable responsibility and value to the official referee with the knowledge that if the official referee makes a mistake one has exactly the same right of appeal one would have if the ease were tried by a High Court judge. If this Bill is passed as it now stands, one would be bound to advise clients that if they voluntarily consented to go to the official referee they would be giving up an important right of appeal. I venture to suggest that it would be defeating the very object of the Bill if the Government
refused to accept the Amendment. In future it would be better to leave the case before the High Court judge and have all your rights of appeal rather than to transfer it to the official referee, where you lose an important right of appeal. I cannot conceive of a client with litigation of any importance agreeing to transfer his case voluntarily to the official referee.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. THORP: I beg to move, in page 1, line 16, at the end, to insert the words:
and with leave of the official referee or of the Court of Appeal on questions of fact.
I do not propose, in moving this Amendment, to repeat the argument which I put before the Committee unsuccessfully when I moved the previous Amendment. This Amendment is a halfway house between the absolute right of the litigant to appeal and the absolute slamming of the door in his face when he desires to appeal, as is proposed in the Bill. As I understand the argument of the Solicitor-General, it is that in the interests of economy he is prepared to go to the extent of denying people that to which they are entitled. In other words, one of the first measures the Government are going to take, with these economical ideas in their mind, is to deprive litigants of rights which they have at the present moment. When it is pointed out that this is admittedly a great alteration in the law of this country, the Solicitor-General says: "It is a negation of the rights of litigants, but it is only a little one," That is the way in which these rights are being whittled down. That is why I move the insertion of these words, so that the dissatisfied litigant may have leave to appeal if he obtains the leave either of the official referee or of the Court of Appeal. It is easy for the Court of Appeal to say that the case is too big or too important or too complicated and that they will not bother to try it. I cannot understand the Court of Appeal saying anything of the kind, but that was one of the arguments put forward by the Solicitor-General for shutting out the right to appeal.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The Committee have already decided that the appeal shall be limited to appeals on
points of law. I appeal to the Committee to stick to that decision and to reject the Amendment.

Mr. CLEMENT DAVIES: I would appeal to the Solicitor-General whether, if he cannot accept the first Amendment, he cannot really accept this Amendment. The position is rather curious. You have a High Court judge who receives a very high salary and from whose decisions there is an appeal on fact and on law to the Court of Appeal and to the House of Lords. On the other hand, you have the official referee, who occupies a minor position as compared with a High Court judge and yet who is to be an absolute judge of fact and from whom there is to be no appeal on facts whatsoever no matter what mistakes he makes. The learned Solicitor-General and I have had many experiences of official referees, and I hope he will agree that, should the official referee perchance make a mistake which is perfectly obvious to the litigants, the matter shall come up before the Court of Appeal. It would not occupy much time. The Court of Appeal would not allow any counsel to go into all the details but would ask him to confine himself to the particular point on which he or they thought that a mistake had been made by the official referee. If they thought, after having heard him, that a mistake had been made, they would then grant leave to appeal. I should have thought that that would have protected the rights of everyone, especially where the parties had been compulsorily forced to go to an official referee by an order of the court. In those circumstances I hope that the Solicitor-General will accept the Amendment, since it is an Amendment which will protect the litigant, the court, and everyone connected with the administration of justice.

Amendment negatived.

Clauses 2 (Power to grant probate or administration where no estate), 3 (Amendment of s. 152 of the principal Act), 4 (Amendment of s. 174 of the principal Act), 5 (Amendment of 22 & 23 Geo. 5. c. 37, s. 38), 6 (Costs of applications under 15 & 16 Geo. 5. c. 20, s. 84) and 7 (Short title) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, with an Amendment; as amended, considered; read the Third time, and passed, with an Amendment.

GAS UNDERTAKINGS ACTS, 1920 to 1929.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to he made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 and 1929, on the application of the Bath Gas Company, which was presented on the 2nd day of June and published, he approved subject; to the following modifications:

Page 16, leave out Section 34, and insert:

34.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Order as from the prescribed date the basic price of gas supplied by the Company shall be—

(a) five decimal five pence per therm for gas supplied in the Bath inner area;
(b) six decimal two pence per therm for gas supplied in the Beath outer area;
(c) seven decimal two pence per therm for gas supplied in the Keynsham area;
(d) eight decimal one pence per therm for gas supplied in the Colerne and Farleigh area:
(e) ten decimal five pence per therm for gas supplied in the Chippenhani inner area;
(f) eleven decimal six eight pence per therm for gas supplied in the Chippingham outer area; and
(g) twelve decimal two five pence per therm for gas supplied in the Corsham area.

(2) The said prices respectively, are in relation to the said areas, respectively; referred to in this Order as "the basic price."

Section 25, page 16, line 17, leave out "basic price," and insert "basic prices."

Section 35, page 16, line 19, leave out "basic price," and insert "basic prices."

Section 35, page 16, line 20, leave out "basic price," and insert "basic prices."

Section 35, page 16, line 27, leave out "basic price," and insert "basic prices."

Section 35, page 16, line 36, leave out "basic price," and insert "basic prices."

Section 39, page 18, lines and 2, leave out "the product of the excess prices," and insert "discount, if any."

Section 39, page 19, leave out lines 6 to 34, inclusive.

Section 40, page 20, line 7, leave out "equal to or more than the basic price," and insert "decimal seven of a penny per therm or more in excess of the basic price."—[Dr. Burgin.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after half-past Eleven of the Clock, upon Tuesday evening, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Twenty Minutes after One o'Clock.